Improving quality of care and long-term health outcomes through continuity of care with the use of an electronic or paper patient-held portable health file (COMMUNICATE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Marissa Nichole Lassere, Sue Baker, Andrew Parle, Anthony Sara, Kent Robert Johnson, Marissa Nichole Lassere, Sue Baker, Andrew Parle, Anthony Sara, Kent Robert Johnson

Abstract

Background: The advantages of patient-held portable health files (PHF) and personal health records (PHR), paper or electronic, are said to include improved health-care provider continuity-of-care and patient empowerment in maintaining health. Top-down approaches are favored by public sector government and health managers. Bottom-up approaches include systems developed directly by health-care providers, consumers and industry, implemented locally on devices carried by patient-consumers or shared via web-based portals. These allow individuals to access, manage and share their health information, and that of others for whom they are authorized, in a private, secure and confidential environment. Few medical record technologies have been evaluated in randomized trials to determine whether there are important clinical benefits of these interventions. The COMMUNICATE trial will assess the acceptability and long-term clinical outcomes of an electronic and paper patient-held PHF.

Methods/design: This is a 48-month, open-label pragmatic, superiority, parallel-group design randomized controlled trial. Subjects (n = 792) will be randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to each of the trial arms: the electronic PHF added to usual care, the paper PHF added to usual care and usual care alone (no PHF). Inclusion criteria include those 60 years or older living independently in the community, but who have two or more chronic medical conditions that require prescription medication and regular care by at least three medical practitioners (general and specialist care). The primary objective is whether use of a PHF compared to usual care reduces a combined endpoint of deaths, overnight hospitalizations and blindly adjudicated serious out-of-hospital events. All primary analyses will be undertaken masked to randomized arm allocation using intention-to-treat principles. Secondary outcomes include quality of life and health literacy improvements.

Discussion: Lack of blinding creates potential for bias in trial conduct and ascertainment of clinical outcomes. Mechanisms are provided to reduce bias, including balanced study contact with all participants, a blinded adjudication committee determining which out-of-hospital events are serious and endpoints that are objective (overnight hospitalizations and mortality). The PRECIS tool provides a summary of the trial's design on the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum.

Trial registration: Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT01082978) on 8 March 2010.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram: the COMMUNICATE trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The electronic and paper portable health files
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Excerpt from contents of the paper portable health file
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary of the COMMUNICATE trial

References

    1. Giglio RJ, Papazian B. Acceptance and use of patient-carried health records. Med Care. 1986;24(12):1084–92. doi: 10.1097/00005650-198612000-00002.
    1. Gilhooly ML, McGhee SM. Medical records: practicalities and principles of patient possession. J Med Ethics. 1991;17(3):138–43. doi: 10.1136/jme.17.3.138.
    1. Liaw ST. Patient and general practitioner perceptions of patient-held health records. Fam Pract. 1993;10(4):406–15. doi: 10.1093/fampra/10.4.406.
    1. Britten N, Bartholomew J, Morris R, Zander L. Consultants’ and patients’ views about patient access to their general practice records. J Royal Soc Med. 1991;84(5):284–7.
    1. Stacey M. Medical ethics and medical practice: a social science view. J Med Ethics. 1985;11(1):14–8. doi: 10.1136/jme.11.1.14.
    1. Ross SE. The effects of promoting patient access to medical records: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;10(2):129–38. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1147.
    1. Hassol A, Walker JM, Kidder D, Rokita K, Young D, Pierdon S, et al. 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. Haux R, Ammenwerth E, Herzog W, Knaup P. Health care in the information society. A prognosis for the year 2013. Int J Med Inform. 2002;66(1–3):3–21. doi: 10.1016/S1386-5056(02)00030-8.
    1. Ornstein S, Jenkins RG, Nietert PJ, Feifer C, Roylance LF, Nemeth L, et al. A multimethod quality improvement intervention to improve preventive cardiovascular care: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(7):523–32. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-7-200410050-00008.
    1. Masys D, Baker D, Butros A, Cowles KE. Giving patients access to their medical records via the internet: the PCASSO experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(2):181–91. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1005.
    1. Health Connect. Australian Government Department of Health. . Accessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. National E-Health Transition Authority (NEHTA). . Accessed 31 May 2015.
    1. Lehnbom EC, McLachlan A, Brien JA. A qualitative study of Australians’ opinions about personally controlled electronic health records. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012;178:105–10.
    1. Spriggs M, Arnold MV, Pearce CM, Fry C. Ethical questions must be considered for electronic health records. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(9):535–9. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100413.
    1. Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) Review. Australian Government Department of Health. (2014). Accessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. Simons WW, Mandl KD, Kohane IS. The PING personally controlled electronic medical record system: technical architecture. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(1):47–54. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1592.
    1. PC Tang WB, Buchanan J, Young CY, Hooper D, Lane SR, Love B, et al. PAMFOnline: Integrating EHealth with an Electronic Medical Record System. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:644–48.
    1. Kim MI, Johnson KB. Personal health records: evaluation of functionality and utility. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(2):171–80. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M0978.
    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. BMJ. 2010;341:c5814. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5814.
    1. Carroll J. Microsoft & Google PHRs draw government interest. Manag Care. 2008;17(7):6–8.
    1. Google Health. (2013). Accessed 17 Feb 2017.
    1. HealthVault. Microsoft. (2015). Acccessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. Dossia Consortium. (2014). Accessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. Tang PC, LaRosa MP, Gorden SM. Use of computer-based records, completeness of documentation, and appropriateness of documented clinical decisions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(3):245–51. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060245.
    1. Hsu J, Huang J, Fung V, Robertson N, Jimison H, Frankel R. Health information technology and physician-patient interactions: impact of computers on communication during outpatient primary care visits. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):474–80. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1741.
    1. Longhurst CA, Parast L, Sandborg CI, Widen E, Sullivan J, Hahn JS, et al. Decrease in hospital-wide mortality rate after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):14–21. doi: 10.1542/peds.2009-3271.
    1. Liaw ST, Radford AJ, Maddocks I. The impact of a computer generated patient held health record. Aust Fam Physician. 1998;27(Suppl 1):S39–43.
    1. Lester H, Allan T, Wilson S, Jowett S, Roberts L. A cluster randomised controlled trial of patient-held medical records for people with schizophrenia receiving shared care. Br J General Pract. 2003;53(488):197–203.
    1. Williams JG, Cheung WY, Chetwynd N, Cohen DR, El-Sharkawi S, Finlay I, et al. Pragmatic randomised trial to evaluate the use of patient held records for the continuing care of patients with cancer. Qual Health Care. 2001;10(3):159–65. doi: 10.1136/qhc.0100159.
    1. Ross S, Lin CT. A randomized controlled trial of a patient-accessible electronic medical record. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:990.
    1. Lassere MJ KR, Rappo J, Gellately W, Iedema R, Parle A, Rubin G, et al. Use of patient-held paper-based and electronic-based portable health files (PHFs) to facilitate reliable health knowledge transfer[online] In: Grain H, et al., editors. HIC 2008 Conference: Australia Health Informatics Conference; The Person in the Centre, August 31 - September 2, 2008. Melbourne: Health Informatics Society of Australia; 2008. pp. 139–44.
    1. Parle A, Lassere M. Engaging the clinician: the value of rapid prototyping of ‘lightweight’ electronic health records [online] In: Grain H, editor. HIC 2008 Conference: Australia Health Informatics Conference; The Person in the Centre, August 31 - September 2, 2008. Melbourne: Health Informatics Society of Australia; 2008. pp. 189–93.
    1. Lassere MRJ, Gellately W, Iedema R. Risk to privacy versus benefit of quality care: what do patients with chronic medical conditions choose[online] In: Grain H, editor. HIC 2008 Conference: Australia Health Informatics Conference; The Person in the Centre, August 31 - September 2, 2008. Melbourne, Victoria: Australia Health Informatics Society of Australia; 2008. pp. 145–7.
    1. EQ-5D a standardised instrument for use as a measure of health outcome. EuroQol Research Foundation. (2015). Accessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. Stewart ST, Cutler DM, Rosen AB. Comparison of trends in US health-related quality of life over the 2000s using the SF-6D, HALex, EQ-5D, and EQ-5D visual analog scale versus a broader set of symptoms and impairments. Med Care. 2014;52(12):1010–6.
    1. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Lu JF, The SCD, MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32(1):40–66. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004.
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gotzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e7586.
    1. Eclipse. The Eclipse Foundation. . Accessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. Java Runtime Environment. The Oracle Academy. . Accessed 17 Feb 2015.
    1. Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(10):537–41. doi: 10.1007/BF02640361.
    1. Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Gazmararian JA, Nurss J. Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 1999;38(1):33–42. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00116-5.
    1. Morris NS, MacLean CD, Chew LD, Littenberg B. The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-21.
    1. Andersen PK, Gill RD. Cox’s regression model for counting processes: a large sample study. Ann Stat. 1982;10(4):1100–20. doi: 10.1214/aos/1176345976.
    1. Villegas R, Julia O, Ocaña J. Empirical study of correlated survival times for recurrent events with proportional hazards margins and the effect of correlation and censoring. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:95. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-95.
    1. Cox CP, Ruhl DJ. Simplified computation of confidence intervals for relative potencies using Fieller’s theorem. J Pharm Sci. 1966;55(4):368–71. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600550403.
    1. Willan AR, O’Brien BJ. Confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an application of Fieller’s theorem. Health Econ. 1996;5(4):297–305. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199607)5:4<297::AID-HEC216>;2-T.
    1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2005. Australian hospital statistics 2003-04. Health services series no. 23. Cat. no. HSE 37. Canberra: AIHW .
    1. Echt DS, Liebson PR, Mitchell LB, Peters RW, Obias-Manno D, Barker AH, et al. Mortality and morbidity in patients receiving encainide, flecainide, or placebo. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial. New Engl J Med. 1991;324(12):781–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199103213241201.
    1. Schwartz D, Lellouch J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20(8):637–48. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(67)90041-0.
    1. Zwarenstein M, Treweek S, Gagnier JJ, Altman DG, Tunis S, Haynes B, et al. Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2390.
    1. Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD, Treweek S, Furberg CD, Altman DG, et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(5):464–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.12.011.
    1. Gaglio B, Phillips SM, Heurtin-Roberts S, Sanchez MA, Glasgow RE. How pragmatic is it? Lessons learned using PRECIS and RE-AIM for determining pragmatic characteristics of research. Implement Sci. 2014;9:96. doi: 10.1186/s13012-014-0096-x.
    1. Gordon P, Camhi E, Hesse R, Odlum M, Schnall R, Rodriguez M, et al. Processes and outcomes of developing a continuity of care document for use as a personal health record by people living with HIV/AIDS in New York City. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(10):e63–73. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2012.06.004.
    1. Krist AH, Glenn BA, Glasgow RE, Balasubramanian BA, Chambers DA, Fernandez ME, et al. Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project. Implement Sci. 2013;8:73. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-73.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться