Engaging hospital patients in the medication reconciliation process using tablet computers.

Objective: Unintentional medication discrepancies contribute to preventable adverse drug events in patients. Patient engagement in medication safety beyond verbal participation in medication reconciliation is limited. We conducted a pilot study to determine whether patients' use of an electronic home medication review tool could improve medication safety during hospitalization. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomized to use a tool before or after hospital admission medication reconciliation to review and modify their home medication list. We assessed the quantity, potential severity, and potential harm of patients' and clinicians' medication changes. We also surveyed clinicians to assess the tool's usefulness. Results: Of 76 patients approached, 65 (86%) participated. Forty-eight (74%) made changes to their home medication list [before: 29 (81%), after: 19 (66%), p = .170]. Before group participants identified 57 changes that clinicians subsequently missed on admission medication reconciliation. Thirty-nine (74%) had a significant or greater potential severity, and 19 (36%) had a greater than 50-50 chance of harm. After group patients identified 68 additional changes to their reconciled medication lists. Fifty-one (75%) had a significant or greater potential severity, and 33 (49%) had a greater than 50-50 chance of harm. Clinicians reported believing that the tool would save time, and patients would supply useful information. Discussion: The results demonstrate a high willingness of patients to engage in medication reconciliation, and show that patients were able to identify important medication discrepancies and often changes that clinicians missed. Conclusion: Engaging patients in admission medication reconciliation using an electronic home medication review tool may improve medication safety during hospitalization.

Reliability and validity of the patient activation measure in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this paper are to describe the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the PAM-13 for hospitalized cardiology and oncology patients and to examine the predictors of low patient activation in the same population. METHODS: We evaluated the internal consistency reliability of the PAM-13 in the inpatient setting. Construct validity of the PAM-13 was then assessed using two approaches: expected known-groups differences between patients with planned and unplanned admissions PAM-13 levels and convergence of PAM-13 levels with other measures. RESULTS: The PAM demonstrated adequate internal consistency overall (Cronbach α=0.81). Patients with unplanned admissions were more likely to have low activation than patients with planned admissions (adjusted OR=5.7, p=0.008). The PAM-13 was modestly correlated (p<0.001) with each of the PROMIS Global Health components used in this study (global, physical and mental health). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the PAM-13 is a reliable and valid measure for use in the inpatient hospital setting and that type of admission (planned versus unplanned) is an important predictor of patient activation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: By measuring patient activation with the PAM-13, clinicians and researchers can provide tailored communication and care strategies to meet patient's needs.

International perspectives on sharing clinical data with patients.

OBJECTIVE: Engaging patients in their care has become a topic of increasing importance, and enabling patients to have access to their clinical data is a key aspect of such engagement. We investigated, on an international scale, the current state of approaches for providing patients with access to their own clinical information. METHODS: Individuals from 28 countries were invited to participate in a cross-sectional semi-structured interview. Interview questions focused on social and cultural influences that affected patient engagement activities, government support for current and planned initiatives, data ownership models, and technical issues. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with individuals from 16 countries representing six continents. Respondents reported substantive initiatives for providing information to patients in the majority of countries interviewed. These initiatives were diverse in nature and stage of implementation. DISCUSSION: Enabling patient access to data is occurring on an international scale. There is considerable variability in the level of maturity, the degree of government involvement, the technical infrastructure, and the plans for future development across the world. As informaticians, we are still in the early stages of deploying patient engagement technologies and have yet to identify optimal strategies in this arena. CONCLUSION: Efforts to improve patient access to data are active on a global-scale. There are many open questions about best practices and much can be learned by adopting an international perspective to guide future implementation efforts.

A Global Analysis of Approaches to Sharing Clinical Data with Patients.

Engaging patients in their care has become a topic of increasing importance, and enabling patients to have access to their clinical data is a key aspect of such engagement. To investigate on an international scale the current state of approaches for providing patients with access to their own clinical information, individuals from 16 countries, across six continents, participated in cross-sectional semi-structured interviews. Interview questions focused on social and cultural influences that affected patient engagement activities, government support for current and planned initiatives, data ownership models, and technical issues. Substantive initiatives for providing information to patients in the majority of countries interviewed are present; however, these initiatives were diverse in nature and stage of implementation. Efforts to improve patient access to data are active on a global-scale. There are many open questions about best practices and much can be learned by adopting an international perspective to guide future implementation efforts.

Patient engagement in the inpatient setting: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review existing literature regarding patient engagement technologies used in the inpatient setting. METHODS: PubMed, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Digital Library, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Xplore, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies that discussed patient engagement ('self-efficacy', 'patient empowerment', 'patient activation', or 'patient engagement'), (2) involved health information technology ('technology', 'games', 'electronic health record', 'electronic medical record', or 'personal health record'), and (3) took place in the inpatient setting ('inpatient' or 'hospital'). Only English language studies were reviewed. RESULTS: 17 articles were identified describing the topic of inpatient patient engagement. A few articles identified design requirements for inpatient engagement technology. The remainder described interventions, which we grouped into five categories: entertainment, generic health information delivery, patient-specific information delivery, advanced communication tools, and personalized decision support. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of the current literature shows there are considerable gaps in knowledge regarding patient engagement in the hospital setting and inconsistent use of terminology regarding patient engagement overall. Research on inpatient engagement technologies has been limited, especially concerning the impact on health outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Providing hospital patients with access to their medical records.

Being a hospital patient can be isolating and anxiety-inducing. We conducted two experiments to better understand clinician and patient perceptions about giving patients access to their medical records during hospital encounters. The first experiment, a survey of physicians, nurses, and other care providers (N=53), showed that most respondents were comfortable with the idea of providing patients with their clinical information. Some expressed reservations that patients might misunderstand information and become unnecessarily alarmed or offended. In the second experiment, we provided eight hospital patients with a daily copy of their full medical record-including physician notes and diagnostic test results. From semi-structured interviews with seven of these patients, we found that they perceived the information as highly useful even if they did not fully understand complex medical terms. Our results suggest that increased patient information sharing in the inpatient setting is beneficial and desirable to patients, and generally acceptable to clinicians.