NURS 8210 Week 9: Personal Health Records Discussion

There are many reasons that personal health records benefit both the patient and health care provider (Ball et al., 2011).  Personal health records (PHR’s) are defined as software applications that patients are able to use to access personal health data and information sharing between parties (Reti et al., 2010).  The introduction of PHR’s has had a tremendous impact on how care is delivered.  Prescription refills, sharing of laboratory results and tests are easily accessible for patients.  With this accessibility comes the requirement of mandating meaningful use to ensure the appropriate use of these technologies that is a benefit to all involved.

Meaningful use incentive program were developed to improve the quality of patient care, ensuring patient privacy, prevent data breaches, medication errors, and fraud risk (Reti et al., 2010). In the first stage many concerns and roll out was not done in an efficient manner, leaving many health care providers scramblin

g to meet the demands of meaningful use without proper support from legislation. Meaningful use 3 in these incentive programs is now implemented but many health care providers are still struggling to meet meaningful use 2 expectations/regulations (Gruessner, 2015).   Stage 2 expectations include clinical summaries, patient specific education, safe messaging tools, follow-up care reminders and access to medical records (Gruessner, 2015).  I support personal health records and I also see that having specific regulation and legislation a vital component due to the sensitive nature of the data. I do feel that the method of which this legislation has been implemented has been flawed making challenging situations and penalties for good meaning professionals. When developing a portal for patients, having this interactive, efficient, user friendly all result in higher satisfaction rates and users wanting to expand its functionality and sign up (Gruessner, 2015).

References

Ball, M. J., Douglas, J. V., Hinton Walker, P., DuLong, D., Gugerty, B., Hannah, K. J., &

Troseth, M. R. (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet

(4th ed.). London, England: Springer-Verlag.

Gruessner, V. (2015). How to properly implement patient portals for meaningful use.

https://ehrintelligence.com/news/how-to-properly-implement-patient-portals-for-

meaningful-use

Reti, S.R., Feldman, H.J., Ross, S.E., & Safra, C. (2010). Improving personal health

records for patient centered care.  Journal of American Medical Informatics

Association, 17(2),192–195, https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1136/jamia.2009.000927

Sample Answer 2 for NURS 8210 Week 9: Personal Health Records Discussion

The  mandating of FHRs is a controversial subject. There are many patients who are very amenable to mandating these, as they like to feel that they are in control of their health care and want to feel as though they are working as a team with their health care providers. However, there are several issues with EHRs that may be an obstacle to patients. Some noted accessibility challenges are portals that feature small-font, English-only, text-based content that is written at a very high literacy level. In addition, existing portals often employ user interfaces that are complex to navigate and difficult to customize (Lyles et al., 2017). Both the portals provided in  the discussion were a bit hard to navigate and became somewhat unwieldy.  The portal must be made accessible to all patients in an equitable and in a manner that can be understood.

Lyles et al. (2017) states: A growing amount of literature documents that certain patient subgroups (such as racial/ethnic minority groups and those with lower socioeconomic status) are significantly less likely to use portals—despite strong interest in portal functionality as well as high Internet and computer use rates across demographic groups in the United States. Paradoxically, these patient subgroups represent populations with disproportionately greater medical need. Much of the literature points to factors such as socioeconomic group, literacy, and ethnicity having the most influence on whether the patient can be induced to use a patient portal.  Izarry et al. (2015) concludes: Current research has demonstrated that patients’ interest and ability to use patient portals is strongly influenced by personal factors such age, ethnicity, education level, health literacy, health status, and role as a caregiver. Indeed, if a patient is disabled, caring for an elder or a child, access to a patient portal is essential for them. If a patient perceives that their provider endorses the use of a portal and encourages them in a positive way, they might be amicable to adopting the use of one. Conversely, if the provider is indifferent or disinterested, the patient may be hesitant to adopt the use of an EHRs.

As with anything that is digital, there is always a chance of cyberattack that can lead to a breach of the portal and the potential exposure of private information. According to the National Law Review (2019), around 25 million patient records have been breached, eclipsing the number of patient records breached in all of 2018 by over 66%. Health care providers and organizations can enhance the security of a patient portal by enhancing the sign in process. Instead of the traditional username-password entry, a 2-factor authentication or an authentication sent through a mobile device may add an extra layer of protection. Health care organizations are not required to adopt any one cybersecurity framework or authentication method under HIPAA, however increasing cybersecurity and implementing multi factor authentication for access to patient portals certainly helps with compliance under the HIPAA Security Rule (National Law Review, 2019).  If robust cybersecurity methods are not implemented, a security breach and leak of private information can embroil a healthcare organization in many legal tangles that could be avoided with a sound, up to date cybersecurity system. The portals explored here in the discussion both do not use a 2-factor authentication.

Patient portals when used are invaluable to both the provider and patient. When the patient feels they are included and are collaborative with their care, the interactions between provider and patient tend to be more positive. Envisioning the patient portal as a dynamic component of the relationship that a provider has with patients can better help to integrate the patient portal into the practice as a whole. This is infinitely better than seeing this as a separate and isolated abyss of information that is not helpful or useful. The value of a patient’s medical information is not only for the provider and patient but can encompass and facilitate research in addition.

References:

Bertoncini, M., Jackson, V. (2019). Is your patient portal secure? Study shows healthcare organizations’ traditional cybersecurity measures are insufficient against today’s attacks. National Law Review, Volume IX, Number 212

Irizarry, T., DeVito Dabbs, A., & Curran, C. R. (2015). Patient Portals and Patient Engagement: A State of the Science Review.Journal of medical Internet research, 17(6), e148.

Lyles, C. R., Fruchterman, J., Youdelman, M., & Schillinger, D. (2017). Legal, Practical, and Ethical Considerations for Making Online Patient Portals Accessible for All. American journal of public health, 107(10), 1608–1611.

Sample Answer for NURS 8210 Week 9: Personal Health Records Discussion

This week the discussion post is about the personal health record (PHR) which is not to be confused by the electronic medical record (EHR). The PHR is controlled by the patient and the information contained within is only shared with providers if the patient choses to disclose whereas with EHR and its contents are controlled by the provider and housed within the clinical system. New on the scene is the integrated record which as the name implies is a combination of both records. It originates from the healthcare provider and is viewed only by the patient from the provider. Many feel this is the best model to capture the best of both types of personal health records (Ball et al, 2010).

The personal health record was touted to be the newest best thing for patient care. A way to save money, improve on clerical duties, an opportunity for patients to be active agents in their care to drive what information they want shared or not shared with the health care universe (Cushman et al., 2010) and to be a lifelong resource that could be added too as members health information changed but this dream did not necessarily improve the efficiency of healthcare, but it brought on new responsibilities for patients and other parties. Patients have had to become personal record keepers and cognizant of what information they would like to he housed within their PHR. As the PHR became more popular, concerns have arisen to include: some platforms have limited ability for members to filter or control the PHR data elements to be shared, even with primary caregivers and family member (Cushman, et al., 2010). The lack of potential security threats and potential hacking concerns due that online networking is essentially unregulated which means a commercial provider of a social networking site can delete information, lose information, and delete a user profile without repercussion or user recourse (Alanzi et al., 2019). Due to these reasons, I do not use a PHR despite being encouraged by my health care provider to join the technology platform.  I did venture out to the site, but to be honest was not impressed by the graphics, the usability or by the reviews that other users that stated about how the site was not user friendly and decided it was not in my best interest and I will remain among the old school individuals who communicate with providers via telephone or face to face.

References

Alanazi, A., & Anazi, Y. A. (2019). The Challenges in Personal Health Record Adoption. Journal of Healthcare Management, 64(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-17-00191

Ball, M. J., Hinton Walker, P., DuLong, D., Gugerty, B., Hannah, K. J., Kiel, J. M., . . . Troseth, M. R. (2011). Nursing informatics: Where technology and caring meet (4th ed.). London, England: Springer-Verlag

Cushman, R., Froomkin, A. M., Cava, A., Abril, P., & Goodman, K. W. (2010). Ethical, legal and social issues for personal health records and applications. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 43(5 Suppl), S51-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2010.05.003

Sample Answer 4 for NURS 8210 Week 9: Personal Health Records Discussion

This is insightful. Personal health record systems were developed to enhance patient’s involvement in the healthcare delivery processes. The system had integrated models that allow healthcare providers to share information and patients to keep track of their medical documentation (Alanazi & Anazi, 2019). Standalone Personal Health Records is one of the PHR system that became widely used by most patients. With this system, patients would fill information from their own records and the data recorded on the internet or in personal computers. The system also have a features that allows data or information from the external sources including laboratories and healthcare providers (Dameff et al., 2019). The use of PHR system, has however deteriorated given the cyber threats that led to the loss of information. In other words, The lack of potential security threats and potential hacking concerns due that online networking is essentially unregulated which means a commercial provider of a social networking site can delete information, lose information, and delete a user profile without repercussion or user recourse (Abd-Alrazaq et al., 2019). Therefore to entice people to use PHR, there is the need to provide proper security that would ensure that patient’s data is safe. One of the question I would pose is: Are there alternative, safe, and efficient systems that can be used to enhance management of patient’s information?

References

Abd-Alrazaq, A., Bewick, B. M., Farragher, T., & Gardner, P. (2019). Factors affecting patients’ use of electronic personal health records in England: Cross-sectional study. Journal of medical Internet research, 21(7), e12373. https://www.jmir.org/2019/7/e12373/

Alanazi, A., & Anazi, Y. A. (2019). The Challenges in Personal Health Record Adoption. Journal of Healthcare Management, 64(2), 104–109. https://doi.org/10.1097/jhm-d-17-00191

Dameff, C., Clay, B., & Longhurst, C. A. (2019). Personal health records: more promising in the smartphone era?. Jama, 321(4), 339-340. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2721088