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
. 2019 Sep 11;7(9):e12861.
doi: 10.2196/12861.

Wearable Health Technology and Electronic Health Record Integration: Scoping Review and Future Directions

Affiliations

Wearable Health Technology and Electronic Health Record Integration: Scoping Review and Future Directions

Catherine Dinh-Le et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Due to the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and legislation on meaningful use in recent decades, health systems are increasingly interdependent on EHR capabilities, offerings, and innovations to better capture patient data. A novel capability offered by health systems encompasses the integration between EHRs and wearable health technology. Although wearables have the potential to transform patient care, issues such as concerns with patient privacy, system interoperability, and patient data overload pose a challenge to the adoption of wearables by providers.

Objective: This study aimed to review the landscape of wearable health technology and data integration to provider EHRs, specifically Epic, because of its prevalence among health systems. The objectives of the study were to (1) identify the current innovations and new directions in the field across start-ups, health systems, and insurance companies and (2) understand the associated challenges to inform future wearable health technology projects at other health organizations.

Methods: We used a scoping process to survey existing efforts through Epic's Web-based hub and discussion forum, UserWeb, and on the general Web, PubMed, and Google Scholar. We contacted Epic, because of their position as the largest commercial EHR system, for information on published client work in the integration of patient-collected data. Results from our searches had to meet criteria such as publication date and matching relevant search terms.

Results: Numerous health institutions have started to integrate device data into patient portals. We identified the following 10 start-up organizations that have developed, or are in the process of developing, technology to enhance wearable health technology and enable EHR integration for health systems: Overlap, Royal Philips, Vivify Health, Validic, Doximity Dialer, Xealth, Redox, Conversa, Human API, and Glooko. We reported sample start-up partnerships with a total of 16 health systems in addressing challenges of the meaningful use of device data and streamlining provider workflows. We also found 4 insurance companies that encourage the growth and uptake of wearables through health tracking and incentive programs: Oscar Health, United Healthcare, Humana, and John Hancock.

Conclusions: The future design and development of digital technology in this space will rely on continued analysis of best practices, pain points, and potential solutions to mitigate existing challenges. Although this study does not provide a full comprehensive catalog of all wearable health technology initiatives, it is representative of trends and implications for the integration of patient data into the EHR. Our work serves as an initial foundation to provide resources on implementation and workflows around wearable health technology for organizations across the health care industry.

Keywords: data collection; electronic health records; mobile health; patient monitoring; wearable electronic devices.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Percentage of US adults who were willing to wear technology that tracks select health statistics as of 2018. Screenshot from www.statista.com [16].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Individuals’ perceptions of the privacy and security of medical records and health information exchange in 2017. Screenshot from https://dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/quickstats.php [7].

References

    1. Tanner C, Gans D, White J, Nath R, Pohl J. Electronic health records and patient safety: co-occurrence of early EHR implementation with patient safety practices in primary care settings. Appl Clin Inform. 2015;6(1):136–47. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2014-11-RA-0099. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/25848419 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Atherton J. Development of the electronic health record. Virtual Mentor. 2011 Mar 1;13(3):186–9. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2011.13.3.mhst1-1103. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/development-electronic-heal... virtualmentor.2011.13.3.mhst1-1103 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tripathi M. HIM Body of Knowledge - Ahima. 2012. [2019-08-08]. EHR Evolution: Policy and Legislation Forces Changing the EHR http://library.ahima.org/doc?oid=105689#.W74na2hKg2y.
    1. The University of Scranton. 2018. [2019-08-08]. EMR: The Progress to 100% Electronic Medical Records https://elearning.scranton.edu/resource/health-human-services/emr_the-pr... .
    1. Cohen MF. Impact of the HITECH financial incentives on EHR adoption in small, physician-owned practices. Int J Med Inform. 2016 Oct;94:143–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.06.017.S1386-5056(16)30146-0 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources