BackgroundPersonal Health Records (PHRs) are electronic health records controlled, shared or maintained by patients to support patient centered care. The potential for PHRs to transform health care is significant; however, PHRs do not always achieve their potential. One reason for this may be that not all health conditions are sensitive to the PHR as an intervention. The goal of this review was to discover which conditions were potentially sensitive to the PHR as an intervention, that is, what conditions have empirical evidence of benefit from PHR-enabled management.MethodsA systematic review of Medline and CINAHL was completed to find articles assessing PHR use and benefit from 2008 to 2014 in specific health conditions. Two researchers independently screened and coded articles. Health conditions with evidence of benefit from PHR use were identified from the included studies.Results23 papers were included. Seven papers were RCTs. Ten health conditions were identified, seven of which had documented benefit associated with PHR use: asthma, diabetes, fertility, glaucoma, HIV, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. Reported benefits were seen in terms of care quality, access, and productivity, although many benefits were measured by self-report through quasi-experimental studies. No study examined morbidity/mortality. No study reported harm from the PHR.ConclusionThere is a small body of condition specific evidence that has been published. Conditions with evidence of benefit when using PHRs tended to be chronic conditions with a feedback loop between monitoring in the PHR and direct behaviours that could be self-managed. These findings can point to other potentially PHR sensitive health conditions and guide PHR designers, implementers, and researchers. More research is needed to link PHR design, features, adoption and health outcomes to better understand how and if PHRs are making a difference to health outcomes.

BackgroundPotentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (PIPs) are a common cause of morbidity, particularly in the elderly.ObjectiveWe sought to understand how the Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP) prescribing criteria, implemented in a routinely used primary care Electronic Medical Record (EMR), could impact PIP rates in community (non-academic) primary care practices.MethodsWe conducted a mixed-method, pragmatic, cluster, randomized control trial in research naïve primary care practices. Phase 1: In the randomized controlled trial, 40 fully automated STOPP rules were implemented as EMR alerts during a 16-week intervention period. The control group did not receive the 40 STOPP rules (but received other alerts). Participants were recruited through the OSCAR EMR user group mailing list and in person at user group meetings. Results were assessed by querying EMR data PIPs. EMR data quality probes were included. Phase 2: physicians were invited to participate in 1-hour semi-structured interviews to discuss the results.ResultsIn the EMR, 40 STOPP rules were successfully implemented. Phase 1: A total of 28 physicians from 8 practices were recruited (16 in intervention and 12 in control groups). The calculated PIP rate was 2.6% (138/5308) (control) and 4.11% (768/18,668) (intervention) at baseline. No change in PIPs was observed through the intervention (P=.80). Data quality probes generally showed low use of problem list and medication list. Phase 2: A total of 5 physicians participated. All the participants felt that they were aware of the alerts but commented on workflow and presentation challenges.ConclusionsThe calculated PIP rate was markedly less than the expected rate found in literature (2.6% and 4.0% vs 20% in literature). Data quality probes highlighted issues related to completeness of data in areas of the EMR used for PIP reporting and by the decision support such as problem and medication lists. Users also highlighted areas for better integration of STOPP guidelines with prescribing workflows. Many of the STOPP criteria can be implemented in EMRs using simple logic. However, data quality in EMRs continues to be a challenge and was a limiting step in the effectiveness of the decision support in this study. This is important as decision makers continue to fund implementation and adoption of EMRs with the expectation of the use of advanced tools (such as decision support) without ongoing review of data quality and improvement.Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02130895; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02130895 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qyFigSYT)

Background In the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, general and specialist Palliative Care (PC) plays an essential role in health care, contributing to symptom control, psycho-social support, and providing support in complex decision making. Numbers of COVID-19 related deaths have recently increased demanding more palliative care input. Also, the pandemic impacts on palliative care for non-COVID-19 patients. Strategies on the care for seriously ill and dying people in pandemic times are lacking. Therefore, the program ‘Palliative care in Pandemics’ (PallPan) aims to develop and consent a national pandemic plan for the care of seriously ill and dying adults and their informal carers in pandemics including (a) guidance for generalist and specialist palliative care of patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 infections on the micro, meso and macro level, (b) collection and development of information material for an online platform, and (c) identification of variables and research questions on palliative care in pandemics for the national pandemic cohort network (NAPKON). Methods Mixed-methods project including ten work packages conducting (online) surveys and qualitative interviews to explore and describe i) experiences and burden of patients (with/without SARS-CoV-2 infection) and their relatives, ii) experiences, challenges and potential solutions of health care professionals, stakeholders and decision makers during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. The work package results inform the development of a consensus-based guidance. In addition, best practice examples and relevant literature will be collected and variables for data collection identified. Discussion For a future “pandemic preparedness” national and international recommendations and concepts for the care of severely ill and dying people are necessary considering both generalist and specialist palliative care in the home care and inpatient setting.

No abstract