Andrea J. Apter

Objectives: Voluntary patient uptake and use of electronic health record (EHR) features have been low. It is unknown whether EHRs fully meet needs of providers or patients with chronic diseases. Study Design: To explore in-depth user experiences, we conducted 6 focus groups: 3 of patients followed by 3 of providers discussing 2 key EHR components: the after-visit summary (AVS) and the patient portal (PP). Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed by 3 independent coders. Methods: Participants with moderate-to-severe asthma and prevalent comorbidities were recruited from 4 primary care and 2 asthma clinics serving low-income urban neighborhoods. Participants discussed their expectations and experience using the AVS and PP, and responded to prototype formats of these features. Additionally, one-on-one interviews were conducted with 10 patients without PP experience to assess their ability to use the system. Results: The 21 patient and 13 provider perspectives differed regarding AVS features and use. Patients wanted a unified view of their medical issues and health management tools, while providers wanted to focus on recommendations from 1 visit at a time. Both groups advocated improving the AVS format and content. Lack of awareness and knowledge about the PP was patients' largest barrier, and was traced back to providers' lack of PP training. Conclusions: Our results underscore the importance of user-centered design when constructing the content and features of the EHR. As technology evolves, an ongoing understanding of patient and provider experiences will be critical to improve uptake, increase use, and ensure engagement, optimizing the potential of EHRs.

Background: Asthmatic adults from low-income urban neighborhoods have inferior health outcomes which in part may be due to barriers accessing care and with patient-provider communication. We adapted a patient advocate (PA) intervention to overcome these barriers. Objective: To conduct a pilot study to assess feasibility, acceptability and preliminary evidence of effectiveness. Methods: A prospective randomized design was employed with mixed methods evaluation. Adults with moderate or severe asthma were randomized to 16 weeks of PA or a minimal intervention (MI) comparison condition. The PA, a non-professional, modeled preparations for a medical visit, attended the visit and confirmed understanding. The PA facilitated scheduling, obtaining insurance coverage and overcoming barriers to implementing medical advice. Outcomes included electronically-monitored inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) adherence, asthma control, quality of life, FEV1, emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. Mixed-effects models guided an intention-to-treat analysis. Results: 100 adults participated: age 47 ± 14 years, 75% female, 71% African–American, 16% white, baseline FEV1 69% ± 18%, 36% experiencing hospitalizations and 56% ED visits for asthma in the prior year. Ninety-three subjects completed all visits; 36 of 53 PA-assigned had a PA visit. Adherence declined significantly in the control (p = 0.001) but not significantly in the PA group (p = 0.30). Both PA and MI groups demonstrated improved asthma control (p = 0.01 in both) and quality of life (p = 0.001, p = 0.004). Hospitalizations and ED visits for asthma did not differ between groups. The observed changes over time tended to favor the PA group, but this study was underpowered to detect differences between groups. Conclusion: The PA intervention was feasible and acceptable and demonstrated potential for improving asthma control and quality of life.