Patient portal implementation: resident and attending physician attitudes.

Keplinger LE, Koopman RJ, Mehr DR, Kruse RL, Wakefield DS, Wakefield BJ, Canfield SM. Patient portal implementation: resident and attending physician attitudes. Family medicine. 2013 May 1; 45(5):335-40.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic patient portals are increasingly common, but there is little information regarding attitudes of faculty and residents at academic medical centers toward them. METHODS: The primary objective was to investigate attitudes toward electronic patient portals among primary care residents and faculty and changes in faculty attitudes after implementation. The study design included a pre-implementation survey of 39 general internal medicine and family medicine residents and 43 generalist faculty addressing attitudes and expectations of a planned patient portal and also a pre- and post-implementation survey of general internal medicine and family medicine faculty physicians. The survey also addressed email communication with patients. RESULTS: Prior to portal implementation, residents reported receiving much less e-mail from patients than faculty physicians; 68% and 9% of residents and faculty, respectively, reported no email exchange in a typical month. Residents were less likely to agree with allowing patients to view selected parts of their medical record on-line than faculty physicians (57% and 81%, respectively). Physicians who participated in the portal's pilot implementation had expected workload to increase (64% agreed), but after implementation, 87% of those responding were neutral or disagreed that workload had increased. After implementation, only 33% believed quality of care had improved compared to 55% who had expected it to improve prior to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Residents and faculty physicians need to be prepared for a changing environment of electronic communication with patients. Some positive and negative expectations of physicians toward enhanced electronic access by patients were not borne out by experience.