Personal touch: personal health records for consumers of healthcare.

Personal health records (PHRs) consist of medical records that the consumer collects from each of their healthcare providers, plus any health information that the consumer adds. Sharing information from the PHR with providers enables the consumer and provider to work together. Use of data in the PHR can help reduce or eliminate duplicate procedures or processes. This helps save time and healthcare dollars. It can help the consumer receive better, more coordinated healthcare. In addition, PHRs will eventually have the impact of empowering consumers as never before to make informed healthcare choices and have a positive impact on the overall cost of healthcare. This article is part of a series of unpublished essays titled A Community View on How Personal Health Records Can Improve Patient Care and Outcomes in Many Healthcare Settings, a collaborative project of Northern Illinois Physicians For Connectivity and the Coalition for Quality and Patient Safety of Chicagoland. For further information on how you can obtain copies of the complete work, contact the principle Dr. Stasia Kahn at Stash5@sbcglobal.net.

Clinical trial of standing-orders strategies to increase the inpatient influenza vaccination rate.

We compared strategies to increase the rate of influenza vaccination. A written standing-orders policy that enabled nurses to vaccinate patients was compared with augmentation of the standing-orders policy with either electronic opt-out orders for physicians or electronic reminders to nurses. Use of opt-out orders yielded the highest vaccination rate (12% of patients), followed by use of nursing reminders (6%); use of the standing-orders policy alone was ineffective.

Use of clinical decision support to increase influenza vaccination: multi-year evolution of the system.

Despite recognition that clinical decision support (CDS) can improve patient care, there has been poor penetration of this technology into healthcare settings. We used CDS to increase inpatient influenza vaccination during implementation of an electronic medical record, in which pharmacy and nursing transactions increasingly became electronic. Over three influenza seasons we evaluated standing orders, provider reminders, and pre-selected physician orders. A pre-intervention cross-sectional survey showed that most patients (95%) met criteria for vaccination. During our intervention, physicians were increasingly likely to accept pre-selected vaccination orders, Year 1 (47%), Year 2 (77%), Year 3 (83%); however vaccine administration by nurses was suboptimal. As electronic medical record functionality improved, patient receipt of vaccine increased dramatically, Year 1 [0/36; 0%], Year 2 [8/66; 12%], Year 3 [286/805; 36%]. Successful use of clinical decision support to increase inpatient influenza vaccination only occurred after initiation of CPOE for all medications and integration of an electronic medication administration record. Also, since most patients met criteria for influenza vaccination, complicated logic to identify high-risk patients was unnecessary.

House staff attitudes about influenza vaccination after participation in a clinical trial to improve vaccination of hospital patients.

We surveyed house staff who had participated in a trial that compared influenza vaccination strategies for inpatients. House staff who were exposed to computer-generated vaccination orders were more likely to report that they recommended vaccination to their inpatients and outpatients, compared with house staff who were not exposed to a vaccination intervention. Also, house staff did not recognize pregnant women as a high-priority population for influenza vaccination.