Design and Development of a Person-Centered Patient Portal Using Participatory Stakeholder Co-Design

John Kildea, John Battista, Briana Cabral, Laurie Hendren, David Herrera, Tarek Hijal, Ackeem Joseph, John Kildea, John Battista, Briana Cabral, Laurie Hendren, David Herrera, Tarek Hijal, Ackeem Joseph

Abstract

Background: Patient portals are increasingly accepted as part of standard medical care. However, to date, most patient portals provide just passive access to medical data. The use of modern technology such as smartphones and data personalization algorithms offers the potential to make patient portals more person-centered and enabling.

Objective: The aim of this study is to share our experience in designing and developing a person-centered patient portal following a participatory stakeholder co-design approach.

Methods: Our stakeholder co-design approach comprised 6 core elements: (1) equal coleadership, including a cancer patient on treatment; (2) patient preference determination; (3) security, governance, and legal input; (4) continuous user evaluation and feedback; (5) continuous staff input; and (6) end-user testing. We incorporated person-centeredness by recognizing that patients should decide for themselves their level of medical data access, all medical data should be contextualized with explanatory content, and patient educational material should be personalized and timely.

Results: Using stakeholder co-design, we built, and are currently pilot-testing, a person-centered patient portal smartphone app called Opal.

Conclusions: Inclusion of all stakeholders in the design and development of patient-facing software can help ensure that the necessary elements of person-centeredness, clinician acceptability, and informatics feasibility are achieved.

Keywords: patient participation; patient portals; software design; telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©John Kildea, John Battista, Briana Cabral, Laurie Hendren, David Herrera, Tarek Hijal, Ackeem Joseph. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 11.02.2019.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Approximate timeline for the Opal project showing how the 6 elements of our participatory stakeholder co-design methodology came together, culminating in the pilot release of Opal in Radiation Oncology. Each element is numbered in the figure and explained in the text. Just over 3 years of co-design and development were undertaken between the development kick off (May 2015) and the pilot release (June 2018). Figure not to scale.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of the ages and smartphone usage of the 361 cancer patients who participated in our waiting room survey. Overall, 66% (237) of the respondents reported that they use a smartphone. These data demonstrate that a smartphone app would reach a broad patient population. The survey was conducted during the summer of 2016 and repeated during the summer of 2017 in the waiting rooms of our cancer center.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient preferences with regard to the personal health information (PHI) that they would like to access via an app or portal. We only included responses from patients who reported that they had a smartphone and who selected just 1 of the 3 options (n=232).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Screenshots of the Opal app demonstrating how the user interface changed based on feedback received during the first focus group. (a) The pre-focus group hamburger menu (illustrated by the red arrow and outlined section) was replaced with (b) a simpler and more intuitive bottom-of-the-screen tab-based menu.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Screenshots of the Opal smartphone app provided in the pilot release, showing the Home view, the My Chart view, the radiotherapy treatment planning view, and the education material library.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Two examples of how Opal contextualizes patient data. On the left, the Computed Tomography (CT) Simulation for Radiotherapy Planning appointment is linked to explanatory material about the CT Simulation procedure. On the right, the Platelet Count blood test results are linked to explanatory material at labtestsonline.org. The red arrows highlight the area in the left view that when tapped brings the user to the view on the right.

References

    1. Irizarry T, DeVito DA, Curran CR. Patient portals and patient engagement: a state of the science review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6):e148. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4255.
    1. Office of the US National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. 2016. [2018-06-20]. What is a patient portal .
    1. Lin CT, Wittevrongel L, Moore L, Beaty BL, Ross SE. An internet-based patient-provider communication system: randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res. 2005;7(4):e47. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7.4.e47.
    1. Zhou YY, Garrido T, Chin HL, Wiesenthal AM, Liang LL. Patient access to an electronic health record with secure messaging: impact on primary care utilization. Am J Manag Care. 2007 Jul;13(7):418–24.
    1. Osborn CY, Mayberry LS, Wallston KA, Johnson KB, Elasy TA. Understanding patient portal use: implications for medication management. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15(7):e133. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2589.
    1. Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3171.
    1. Kruse CS, Argueta DA, Lopez L, Nair A. Patient and provider attitudes toward the use of patient portals for the management of chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e40. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3703.
    1. Hassol A, Walker JM, Kidder D, Rokita K, Young D, Pierdon S, Deitz D, Kuck S, Ortiz E. Patient experiences and attitudes about access to a patient electronic health care record and linked web messaging. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(6):505–13. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1593.
    1. Wolff JL, Darer JD, Berger A, Clarke D, Green JA, Stametz RA, Delbanco T, Walker J. Inviting patients and care partners to read doctors' notes: OpenNotes and shared access to electronic medical records. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Apr 1;24(e1):e166–72. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw108.
    1. Pillemer F, Price RA, Paone S, Martich GD, Albert S, Haidari L, Updike G, Rudin R, Liu D, Mehrotra A. Direct release of test results to patients increases patient engagement and utilization of care. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 23;11(6):e0154743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154743.
    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 Nov;14(6):e162. doi: 10.2196/jmir.2238.
    1. Baudendistel I, Winkler E, Kamradt M, Längst G, Eckrich F, Heinze O, Bergh B, Szecsenyi J, Ose D. Personal electronic health records: understanding user requirements and needs in chronic cancer care. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e121. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3884.
    1. Otte-Trojel T, de Bont A, Aspria M, Adams S, Rundall TG, van de Klundert J, de Mul M. Developing patient portals in a fragmented healthcare system. Int J Med Inform. 2015 Oct;84(10):835–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.07.001.
    1. Prey JE, Polubriaginof F, Kuperman GJ, Tiase V, Collins SA, Vawdrey DK. International perspectives on sharing clinical data with patients. Int J Med Inform. 2016 Feb;86:135–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.11.007.
    1. Rigby M, Georgiou A, Hyppönen H, Ammenwerth E, de Keizer N, Magrabi F, Scott P. Patient portals as a means of information and communication technology support to patient- centric care coordination - the missing evidence and the challenges of evaluation. A joint contribution of IMIA WG EVAL and EFMI WG EVAL. Yearb Med Inform. 2015 Aug 13;10(1):148–59. doi: 10.15265/IY-2015-007.
    1. Opal. Opal Health
    1. Beard L, Schein R, Morra D, Wilson K, Keelan J. The challenges in making electronic health records accessible to patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):116–20. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000261.
    1. Jensen TB, Thorseng AA. Building National Healthcare Infrastructure: The Case of the Danish e-Health Portal. In: Aanestad M, Grisot M, Hanseth O, Vassilakopoulou P, editors. Information Infrastructures within European Health Care. New York: Springer; 2017. pp. 209–24.
    1. Cresswell K, Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. Int J Med Inform. 2013 May;82(5):e73–86. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.10.007.
    1. Kujala S. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav Inf Technol. 2003 Jan;22(1):1–16. doi: 10.1080/01449290301782.
    1. McConnell S. Rapid Development: Taming Wild Software Schedules. Seattle: Microsoft Press; 1996. Jul 12,
    1. Robertson T, Simonsen J. Challenges and opportunities in contemporary participatory design. Des Issues. 2012 Jul;28(3):3–9. doi: 10.1162/DESI_a_00157.
    1. Tang T, Lim ME, Mansfield E, McLachlan A, Quan SD. Clinician user involvement in the real world: designing an electronic tool to improve interprofessional communication and collaboration in a hospital setting. Int J Med Inform. 2018 Feb;110:90–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.011.
    1. Clemensen J, Larsen SB, Kyng M, Kirkevold M. Participatory design in health sciences: using cooperative experimental methods in developing health services and computer technology. Qual Health Res. 2007 Jan;17(1):122–30. doi: 10.1177/1049732306293664.
    1. Yip MH, Phaal R, Probert DR. Stakeholder engagement in early stage product-service system development for healthcare informatics. Proceedings of PICMET '13: Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET); PICMET '13: Technology Management in the IT-Driven Services (PICMET); 28 July-1 Aug 2013; San Jose, CA, USA. 2013.
    1. Sligo J, Gauld R, Roberts V, Villa L. A literature review for large-scale health information system project planning, implementation and evaluation. Int J Med Inform. 2017 Dec;97:86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.09.007.
    1. Kushniruk A, Nøhr C. Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2016;222:139–51.
    1. Wilson EV. Patient-Centered E-Health. Hershey: IGI Global; 2008. Patient-Centered E-Health Design; pp. 10–25.
    1. Ryan BL, Brown JB, Terry A, Cejic S, Stewart M, Thind A. Implementing and using a patient portal: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives on engaging patients. J Innov Health Inform. 2016 Jul 4;23(2):848. doi: 10.14236/jhi.v23i2.848.
    1. van Limburg M, Wentzel J, Sanderman R, van Gemert-Pijnen L. Business modeling to implement an eHealth portal for infection control: a reflection on co-creation with stakeholders. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015 Aug 13;4(3):e104. doi: 10.2196/resprot.4519.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Hinder S, Stramer K, Bratan T, Russell J. Adoption, non-adoption, and abandonment of a personal electronic health record: case study of HealthSpace. Br Med J. 2010;341:c5814.
    1. Kooij L, Groen WG, van Harten WH. The effectiveness of information technology-supported shared care for patients with chronic disease: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2017 Jun 22;19(6):e221. doi: 10.2196/jmir.7405.
    1. The Standish Group. The Standish Group; 1994. [2018-06-20]. The Chaos Report (1994) .
    1. Bate P, Robert G. Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Oct;15(5):307–10. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.016527.
    1. Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. N Z Med J. 2012 Jun 29;125(1357):76–87.
    1. Conway J, Johnson B, Edgman-Levitan S, Schlucter J, Ford D, Sodomka P, Simmons L. Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care. Bethesda, MD: 2006. Jun, [2018-06-20]. Partnering with patients and families to design a patient-and family-centered health care system: a roadmap for the future: a work in progress .
    1. Ekman I, Swedberg K, Taft C, Lindseth A, Norberg A, Brink E, Carlsson J, Dahlin-Ivanoff S, Johansson IL, Kjellgren K, Lidén E, Öhlén J, Olsson L, Rosén H, Rydmark M, Sunnerhagen KS. Person-centered care--ready for prime time. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2011 Dec;10(4):248–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2011.06.008.
    1. Christensen T. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. 2017. Sep 14, [2018-06-21]. The Evolution of Patient-Centered Care and the Meaning of Co-Design .
    1. Ahern DK, Woods SS, Lightowler MC, Finley SW, Houston TK. Promise of and potential for patient-facing technologies to enable meaningful use. Am J Prev Med. 2011 May;40(5 Suppl 2):S162–72. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.01.005.
    1. Tang PC, Ash JS, Bates DW, Overhage JM, Sands DZ. Personal health records: definitions, benefits, and strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(2):121–6. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2025.
    1. Beck K, Beedle M, Van Bennekum A, Cockburn A, Cunningham W, Fowler M, Grenning J, Highsmith J, Hunt A, Jeffries R, Kern J, Marick B, Martin RC, Mellor S, Schwaber K, Sutherland J, Thomas D. Agile Manifesto. 2001. [2018-12-03]. Principles behind the agile manifesto .
    1. GitHub.
    1. ZenHub.
    1. Crashlytics.
    1. Lab Tests Online.
    1. Canadian Partnership Against Cancer Reports. Toronto: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; 2018. [2018-12-04]. Living with Cancer: A Report on the Patient Experience
    1. Peacock S, Reddy A, Leveille SG, Walker J, Payne TH, Oster NV, Elmore JG. Patient portals and personal health information online: perception, access, and use by US adults. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Apr 1;24(e1):e173–7. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw095.
    1. Leonard KJ, Wiljer D. Patients are destined to manage their care. Healthc Q. 2007;10(3):76–8.
    1. MyUHN Patient Portal. 2015. [2018-06-21]. How myUHN Patient Portal can improve care in your clinic: Results from the myUHN early adopter evaluation .
    1. Grünloh C, Cajander Å, Myreteg G. "The record is our work tool!"-Physicians' framing of a patient portal in Sweden. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Dec 27;18(6):e167. doi: 10.2196/jmir.5705.
    1. Giardina TD, Callen J, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI, Greisinger A, Esquivel A, Forjuoh SN, Parrish DE, Singh H. Releasing test results directly to patients: a multisite survey of physician perspectives. Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jun;98(6):788–96. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.02.011.
    1. Miller DP, Latulipe C, Melius KA, Quandt SA, Arcury TA. Primary care providers' views of patient portals: interview study of perceived benefits and consequences. J Med Internet Res. 2016 Jan 15;18(1):e8. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4953. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4953.
    1. Ross SE, Lin CT. The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 Apr;10(2):129–38.
    1. Mák G, Smith FH, Leaver C, Hagens S, Zelmer J. The effects of web-based patient access to laboratory results in British Columbia: a patient survey on comprehension and anxiety. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(8):e191. doi: 10.2196/jmir.4350.
    1. MyUHN Patient Portal. 2016. [2018-12-03]. LEADing Practise Challenge: MyUHN Patient Portal .
    1. Rexhepi H, Åhlfeldt RM, Cajander Å, Huvila I. Cancer patients' attitudes and experiences of online access to their electronic medical records: a qualitative study. Health Informatics J. 2016 Jul 19;24(2):115–24. doi: 10.1177/1460458216658778.

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel