Designing a System for Patients Controlling Providers’ Access to their Electronic Health Records: Organizational and Technical Challenges

Journal of General Internal Medicine

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 17-24

  Leventhal, Jeremy C ^a   Cummins, Jonathan A ^a   Schwartz, Peter H ^b,c   Martin, Douglas K ^a,b   Tierney, William M ^a,b,c  

^a REGENSTRIEF INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c ESKENAZI HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

electronic health records; fair information practices; patient preferences

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME NURSING; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; HEALTH; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MENTAL HEALTH; NURSE; NURSE PRACTITIONER; ONLINE SYSTEM; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PHYSICIAN; PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH; SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN RELATION; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; UNITED STATES;

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HUMANS; INDIANA; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS;

EID: 84925502079     PISSN: 08848734     EISSN: 15251497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-014-3055-y     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Federal Trade Commission. Privacy online: Fair information practices in the electronic marketplace: A report to Congress. FTC: 2000; available at: http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/privacy-online-fair-information-practices-electronic-marketplace-federal-trade-commission-report/privacy2000text.pdf; accessed September 23, 2014.
2. Meslin EM, Alpert SA, Carroll AE, Odell JD, Tierney WM, Schwartz PH. Giving patients granular control of personal health information: using an ethics ‘Points to Consider’ to inform informatics system designers. Int J Med Inform. 2013;82:1136–1143.
3. Caine K, Hanania R. Patients want granular privacy control over health information in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:7–15.
4. President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology. Report to the President Realizing the Full Potential of Health Information Technology to Improve Healthcare for Americans: A Path Forward. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-health-it-report.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2014.
5. McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Barnes M, et al. The Indiana network for patient care: a working local health information infrastructure. An example of a working infrastructure collaboration that links data from five health systems and hundreds of millions of entries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:1214–1220.
6. Biondich PG, Grannis SJ. The Indiana network for patient care: an integrated clinical information system informed by over thirty years of experience. J Public Health Manag Pract 2004;Suppl:S81-6.
7. Duke JD, Morea J, Mamlin B, et al. Regenstrief Institute’s Medical Gopher: A next-generation homegrown electronic medical record system. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83:170–179.
8. Caine K, Kohn S, Lawrence C, Hanania R, Meslin EM, Tierney WM. Access, understanding, control, and notification: Implications for the design of a patient-centered tool to allow individual choice in the disclosure of EHR data. J Gen Intern Med 2014 (in press).
9. Zhu VJ, Overhage MJ, Egg J, Downs SM, Grannis SJ. An empiric modification to the probabilistic record linkage algorithm using frequency-based weight scaling. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(5):738–745.
10. Subramanian U, Ackermann RT, Brizendine EJ, et al. Effect of advanced access scheduling on processes and intermediate outcomes of diabetes care and utilization. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:327–333.
11. JASON, The MITRE Corporation. A Robust Health Data Infrastructure. Available at: http://healthit.gov/sites/default/files/ptp13-700hhs_white.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2014.
12. Carr JM. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics Recommendations Regarding Sensitive Health Information. Available at: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/101110lt.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2014.
13. Perneger TV, Agoritsas T. Doctors and patients’ susceptibility to framing bias: a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:1411–1417.
14. Weinberger M, Murray MD, Marrero DG, et al. A pharmaceutical care program for patients with reactive airways disease. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001;58:791–796.
15. Solr. Available at: http://lucene.apache.org/solr/; accessed September 23, 2014.
16. Lucene. Available at: http://lucene.apache.org/; accessed September 23, 2014.
17. Vawdrey DK, Wilcox LG, Collins S, et al. Awareness of the care team in electronic health records. Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2:395–405.
18. McDonald CJ, Overhage JM, Tierney WM, et al. The Regenstrief Medical Record System: A quarter century experience. Int J Med Inform. 1999;54:225–253.
19. Seebregts CJ, Mamlin BW, Biondich PG, et al. The Open MRS implementers network. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78:711–720.
20. OpenMRS. Available at: http://openmrs.org; accessed September 23, 2014.
21. Schwartz PH, Caine K, Alpert SA, Meslin EM, Carroll AE, Tierney WM. Patient preferences to control access to their electronic health records in primary care. J Gen Intern Med 2014 (in press).
22. Tierney WM, Miller ME, Overhage JM, McDonald CJ. Physician inpatient order-writing on microcomputer workstations: Effects on resource utilization. JAMA. 1993;269:379–383.
23. McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM, et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. A two-year randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1984;100:130–138.
24. Friedman C, Rindflesch TC, Corn M. Natural language processing: state of the art and prospects for significant progress, a workshop sponsored by the National Library of Medicine. J Biomed Inform. 2013;46:765–773.