Shimada Stephanie L, Petrakis Beth Ann, Rothendler James A, Zirkle Maryan, Zhao Shibei, Feng Hua, Fix Gemmae M, Ozkaynak Mustafa, Martin Tracey, Johnson Sharon A, Tulu Bengisu, Gordon Howard S, Simon Steven R, Woods Susan S
Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Department of Veterans Affairs, Bedford, MA, USA.
Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Sep 1;24(5):942-949. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx021.
We sought to understand how patients and primary care teams use secure messaging (SM) to communicate with one another by analyzing secure message threads from 2 Department of Veterans Affairs facilities.
We coded 1000 threads of SM communication sampled from 40 primary care teams.
Most threads (94.5%) were initiated by patients (90.4%) or caregivers (4.1%); only 5.5% were initiated by primary care team members proactively reaching out to patients. Medication renewals and refills (47.2%), scheduling requests (17.6%), medication issues (12.9%), and health issues (12.7%) were the most common patient-initiated requests, followed by referrals (7.0%), administrative issues (6.5%), test results (5.4%), test issues (5.2%), informing messages (4.9%), comments about the patient portal or SM (4.1%), appreciation (3.9%), self-reported data (2.8%), life issues (1.5%), and complaints (1.5%). Very few messages were clinically urgent (0.7%) or contained other potentially challenging content. Message threads were mostly short (2.7 messages), comprising an average of 1.35 discrete content types. A substantial proportion of issues (24.2%) did not show any evidence of being resolved through SM. Time to response and extent of resolution via SM varied by message content. Proactive SM use by teams varied, but was most often for test results (32.7%), medication-related issues (21.8%), medication renewals (16.4%), or scheduling issues (18.2%).
The majority of messages were transactional and initiated by patients or caregivers. Not all content categories were fully addressed over SM. Further education and training for both patients and clinical teams could improve the quality and efficiency of SM communication.
我们试图通过分析来自两个退伍军人事务部机构的安全消息线程,了解患者和基层医疗团队如何使用安全消息传递(SM)进行相互沟通。
我们对从40个基层医疗团队中抽取的1000条SM通信线程进行编码。
大多数线程(94.5%)由患者(90.4%)或护理人员(4.1%)发起;只有5.5%由基层医疗团队成员主动联系患者发起。药物续订和补充(47.2%)、预约请求(17.6%)、药物问题(12.9%)和健康问题(12.7%)是患者发起的最常见请求,其次是转诊(7.0%)、行政问题(6.5%)、检查结果(5.4%)、检查问题(5.2%)、告知消息(4.9%)、关于患者门户网站或SM的评论(4.1%)、感谢(3.9%)、自我报告数据(2.8%)、生活问题(1.5%)和投诉(1.5%)。临床紧急消息很少(0.7%)或包含其他潜在具有挑战性的内容。消息线程大多较短(2.7条消息),平均包含1.35种离散内容类型。相当一部分问题(24.2%)没有显示出通过SM得到解决的任何证据。通过SM的响应时间和解决程度因消息内容而异。团队主动使用SM的情况各不相同,但最常用于检查结果(32.7%)、药物相关问题(21.8%)、药物续订(16.4%)或预约问题(18.2%)。
大多数消息是事务性的,由患者或护理人员发起。并非所有内容类别都能通过SM得到充分解决。对患者和临床团队进行进一步的教育和培训可以提高SM通信的质量和效率。