Meaningful use in the safety net: A rapid ethnography of patient portal implementation at five community health centers in California

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 903-912

  Ackerman, Sara L ^a   Sarkar, Urmimala ^b   Tieu, Lina ^b   Handley, Margaret A ^b   Schillinger, Dean ^b   Hahn, Kenneth ^b   Hoskote, Mekhala ^b   Gourley, Gato ^b   Lyles, Courtney ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Electronic health records; Health disparities; Meaningful use; Patient access to records; Safety net providers

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ADULT; ATTENTION; CALIFORNIA; CERTIFICATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; ETHNOGRAPHY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH CENTER; HEALTH DISPARITY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LOWEST INCOME GROUP; MALE; MARKETING; MEANINGFUL USE CRITERIA; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PATIENT RIGHT; SAFETY NET HOSPITAL; STAFF; CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; MEDICAL RECORD;

ANTHROPOLOGY, CULTURAL; CALIFORNIA; COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; HEALTH PLAN IMPLEMENTATION; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MEANINGFUL USE; PATIENT PORTALS; SAFETY-NET PROVIDERS;

EID: 85031896488     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocx015     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Hoerbst A. The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: a systematic review of controlled trials. J Med Internet Res. 2012;14:e162.
2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Stage 2 Overview Tip Sheet. 2012. https://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/ehrincentiveprograms/downloads/stage2overview_tipsheet.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2016.
3. Patel V, Barker W, Siminerio E. Disparities in individuals' access and use of health IT in 2013. Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT. Washington, DC; 2015. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/briefs/oncdatabrief26june2015consumerhealthit.pdf. Accessed September 12, 2016.
4. Tieu L, Sarkar U, Schillinger D, et al. Barriers and facilitators to online portal use among patients and caregivers in a safety net health care system: a qualitative study. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17:e275.
5. Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D. Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography. BMC Med. 2011;9:45.
6. Bunce AE, Gold R, Davis JV, et al. Ethnographic process evaluation in primary care: explaining the complexity of implementation. BMC Health Services Res. 2014;14:607.
7. Swinglehurst D, Greenhalgh T, Myall M, et al. Ethnographic study of ICT-supported collaborative work routines in general practice. BMC Health Services Res. 2010;10:348.
8. Ackerman S, Gleason N, Gonzales R. Using rapid ethnography to support the design and implementation of health information technologies. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;215:14-27.
9. Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inform. 1999;55:87-101.
10. Wears RL, Berg M. Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for Godot. JAMA. 2005;293:1261-63.
11. Forsythe D. New bottles, old wine: hidden cultural assumptions in a computerized explanation system for migraine sufferers. Med Anthropol Quart. 2007;10:551-74.
12. Akrich M. The description of technical objects. In WE Bijker, J Law, eds. Shaping Technology/Building Society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992:205-24.
13. Ackerman SL, Tebb K, Stein JC, et al. Benefit or burden? A sociotechnical analysis of diagnostic computer kiosks in fourCalifornia hospital emergency departments. Social SciMed. 2012;75:2378-85.
14. Murray E, Burns J, May C, et al. Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2011;6:6.
15. Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why do evaluations of ehealth programs fail? an alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000360. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.100036.
16. Berg M. Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int J Med Inform. 2001;64:143-56.
17. Greenhalgh T, Potts HWW, Wong G, et al. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Quart. 2009;87:729-88.
18. Cresswell KM, Sheikh A. Undertaking sociotechnical evaluations of health information technologies. Inform Primary Care. 2014;21:78-83.
19. American Medical Association. Health IT Readiness Survey. https://www.stepsforward.org/modules/ehr-software-vendor-selection. Accessed December 2, 2016.
20. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2007.
21. Boeije H. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of qualitative interviews. Qual Quant. 2002;36:391-409.
22. Czaja SJ, Zarcadoolas C, Vaughon WL, et al. The usability of electronic personal health record systems for an underserved adult population. Hum Factors. 2015;57:491-506.
23. Tieu L, Schillinger D, Sarkar U, et al. Online patient websites for electronic health record access among vulnerable populations: portals to nowhere? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;0:1-8.
24. Goel MS, Brown TL, Williams A, et al. Disparities in enrollment and use of an electronic patient portal. JGIM. 2011;26:1112-16.
25. Yamin CK, Emani S, Williams DH, et al. The digital divide in adoption and use of a personal health record. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:568-74.
26. Ahern DK, Woods SS, Lightowler MC, et al. Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use. Am J Prevent Med. 2011;40:S162-72.
27. Otte-Trojel T, de Bont A, van de Klundert J, et al. Characteristics of patient portals developed in the context of health information exchanges: early policy effects of incentives in the meaningful use program in the United States. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16:e258.