No significant change in face-to-face visit frequency was observed following implementation of portal messaging. Secure messaging and e-visits through a patient portal may not result in a change of adult primary care face-to-face visits.

Patients use portal messages 3.5% of the time for potentially high-risk symptoms of chest pain, breathing concerns, abdominal pain, palpitations, lightheadedness, and vomiting. Death, hospitalization, or an ED visit was an infrequent outcome following a secure message or eVisit. Screening the message subject line for high-risk symptoms was not successful in identifying high-risk message content.

Symptom-related sites ranked highly by major search engines lack much of the information needed to make a decision about whether a symptom needs urgent attention. When present, this information is usually not located where users can rapidly access it and often lacks prescriptive guidance for users to seek care. Until more sites contain at least minimal triage advice, relying on an Internet search to help determine the urgency of a symptom could be risky.

E-consultations are being offered within clinic walls as an option for specialist advice without a face-to-face consultation appointment. In a six month time frame, nearly 100% of primary care internists and family medicine providers in a multispecialty practice had used an e-consultation at least once. Specialists also used e-consultations for advice from other specialists. E-consultations were often questions about interpreting images or laboratory tests, or questions about management of chronic conditions such as osteoporosis, hypertension, or headaches. Although e-consultations were offered as an alternative to face-to-face specialty consultations, 1,111 of 5,334 e-consultations eventually did receive face-to-face appointments in the same specialty. Within 30 days of the e-consultation 11.5% had a specialty face-to-face visit and 17.7% had seen a specialist face-to-face within 90 days of the e-consultation. The conversions of e-consultations to face-to-face consultations depended on the specialty providing the e-consultation (fewer for gastroenterology and infectious disease), patient distance from the clinic (fewer for international patients and those living greater than 800 kilometers from the clinic), and experience of specialist responding to the e-consultation (lower conversions for specialists providing 15 or more e-consultations).

Rationale, aims and objectivesIn 2005, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued recommendations for one-time abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening using abdominal ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years with a history of smoking. However, despite a mortality rate of up to 80% for ruptured AAAs, providers order the screening for a minority of patients. We examined AAA screening rates among providers and investigated the role of visit duration and other factors in whether patients received screening. We also looked for potential interventions to improve compliance.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who visited our clinic over a 4-month period and met the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for AAA screening when our practice had a real-time decision support tool implemented to identify patients due for the screening. We also surveyed our clinic's providers about their knowledge and attitudes regarding AAA screening.ResultsDespite the use of physician reminders, providers ordered screening for only 12.9% of eligible patients. Screening was more likely to be ordered during longer visits versus shorter ones (24% vs. 6%). When surveyed, most providers (70.6%) indicated that a nurse-directed ordering system would improve compliance.ConclusionsThis study illustrates that physician reminders alone are not sufficient to improve care and that more time is needed for preventive services. This provides additional support for the use of a multidisciplinary approach to preventive screening, as in a patient-centred medical home. In a patient-centred medical home, a care team of physicians, nurses and office staff use technology such as clinical decision support to provide comprehensive, coordinated patient care.

BackgroundUniversal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening remains low in many clinical practices despite published guidelines recommending screening for all patients between ages 13–65. Electronic clinical decision support tools have improved screening rates for many chronic diseases. We designed a quality improvement project to improve the rate of universal HIV screening of adult patients in a Midwest primary care practice using a clinical decision support tool.MethodsWe conducted this quality improvement project in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Baseline primary care practice HIV screening data were acquired from January 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014. We surveyed providers and educated them about current CDC recommended screening guidelines. We then added an HIV screening alert to an existing electronic clinical decision support tool and post-intervention HIV screening rates were obtained from May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. The primary quality outcome being assessed was change in universal HIV screening rates.ResultsTwelve thousand five hundred ninety-six unique patients were eligible for HIV screening in 2014; 327 were screened for HIV. 6,070 and 6,526 patients were seen before and after the intervention, respectively. 1.80 % of eligible patients and 3.34 % of eligible patients were screened prior to and after the intervention, respectively (difference of −1.54 % [−2.1 %, −0.99 %], p < 0.0001); OR 1.89 (1.50, 2.38). Prior to the intervention, African Americans were more likely to have been screened for HIV (OR 3.86 (2.22, 6.71; p < 0.001) than Whites, but this effect decreased significantly after the intervention (OR 1.90 (1.12, 3.21; p = 0.03).ConclusionsThese data showed that an electronic alert almost doubled the rates of universal HIV screening by primary care providers in a Midwestern practice and reduced racial disparities, but there is still substantial room for improvement in universal screening practices. Opportunities for universal HIV screening remain abundant, as many providers either do not understand the importance of screening average risk patients or do not remember to discuss it. Alerts to remind providers of current guidelines and help identify screening opportunities can be helpful.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0320-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Advance directive completion rates remain poor in the ambulatory setting. The purpose of this study was to explore and contrast staff provider and resident physicians' experiences with advance care planning (ACP) and to identify barriers to this process in the primary care setting. A 17-item survey was administered to staff primary care providers and categorical internal medicine residents. Staff providers were more likely to discuss ACP after prompting from patients' family members (P < .02) or after a change in health status (P < .02) and were more likely to believe that non-physician members of the care team should counsel patients about ACP. The majority of respondents cited system-based barriers as major obstacles to ACP. Strategies aimed at systematizing the ACP process for both patients and providers are needed.

Background Patient portal registration and the use of secure messaging are increasing. However, little is known about how the work of responding to and initiating patient messages is distributed among care team members and how these messages may affect work after hours. Objective This study aimed to examine the growth of secure messages and determine how the work of provider responses to patient-initiated secure messages and provider-initiated secure messages is distributed across care teams and across work and after-work hours. Methods We collected secure messages sent from providers from January 1, 2013, to March 15, 2018, at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, both in response to patient secure messages and provider-initiated secure messages. We examined counts of messages over time, how the work of responding to messages and initiating messages was distributed among health care workers, messages sent per provider, messages per unique patient, and when the work was completed (proportion of messages sent after standard work hours). Results Portal registration for patients having clinic visits increased from 33% to 62%, and increasingly more patients and providers were engaged in messaging. Provider message responses to individual patients increased significantly in both primary care and specialty practices. Message responses per specialty physician provider increased from 15 responses per provider per year to 53 responses per provider per year from 2013 to 2018, resulting in a 253% increase. Primary care physician message responses increased from 153 per provider per year to 322 from 2013 to 2018, resulting in a 110% increase. Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and registered nurses, all contributed to the substantial increases in the number of messages sent. Conclusions Provider-sent secure messages at a large health care institution have increased substantially since implementation of secure messaging between patients and providers. The effort of responding to and initiating messages to patients was distributed across multiple provider categories. The percentage of message responses occurring after hours showed little substantial change over time compared with the overall increase in message volume.