Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 May;45(5):335-40.

Patient portal implementation: resident and attending physician attitudes

Affiliations

Patient portal implementation: resident and attending physician attitudes

Lynn E Keplinger et al. Fam Med. 2013 May.

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Gaster B, Knight CL, DeWitt DE, Sheffield JV, Assefi NP, Buchwald D. Physicians’ use of and attitudes toward electronic mail for patient communication. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(5):385–389. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kellerman R, Kirk L. Principles of the patient-centered medical home. Am Fam Physician. 2007;76(6):774–775. - PubMed
    1. Ford EW, Menachemi N, Peterson LT, Huerta TR. Resistance is futile: but it is slowing the pace of EHR adoption nonetheless. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(3):274–281. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(6):501–504. - PubMed
    1. Paladine HL, Miller K, White B, Feifer C. Study of a novel curriculum on electronic communication in family medicine residencies. Fam Med. 2010;42(5):314–321. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources