Cargando…

On the effect of electronic patient portal on primary care utilization and appointment adherence

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of patient portal adoption on patients’ primary care utilization and appointment adherence. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a panel difference-in-differences (DID) framework to investigate the use o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhong, Xiang, Liang, Muxuan, Sanchez, Reynerio, Yu, Menggang, Budd, Pamela R., Sprague, Julie L., Dewar, Marvin A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6192126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30326876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0669-8
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of patient portal adoption on patients’ primary care utilization and appointment adherence. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study using a panel difference-in-differences (DID) framework to investigate the use of primary care services by patients, adjusting for their disease burden and allowing for time-dependent portal effect. A large dataset with 46,544 patients of University of Florida (UF) Health during the study period July 2013 – June 2016 was used. The main outcome measures are disease burden adjusted rates of office visits arrived, no-show, and cancellation to primary care physicians (PCPs) per quarter between patient portal adopters (denoted as users) and non-users. RESULTS: At the time of adoption, the quarterly PCP office visit rate ratio (RR) of patient portal users to non-users was 1.33 (95% CI, 1.27–1.39; p < 0.001). The RRs were between 0.94 to 0.99 up to four quarters after portal adoption (p = 0.749, 0.100, 0.131, and 0.091, respectively), and were significantly less than one at the seventh (RR =0.82; 95% CI, 0.73–0.91; p < 0.001) and the eighth (RR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70–0.90; p < 0.001) quarters post adoption. The quarterly no-show rates of the users were significantly smaller (RRs were between 0.60 and 0.83) except for the seventh, eighth and tenth quarters post adoption. In these three quarters, the no-show rates were not significantly changed (p = 0.645, 0.295, and 0.436, respectively). Quarterly cancellation rates were not significantly affected by portal adoption (p > 0.05 for all cases). CONCLUSIONS: Patient portal users’ disease burden adjusted PCP office visit rate was significantly reduced in one and a half year and thereafter post portal adoption. PCP appointment no-show rate was also significantly reduced and cancellation rate was not affected, implying improved care engagement of patients.