Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundClinician bias contributes to healthcare disparities, and the language used to describe a patient may reflect that bias. Although medical records are an integral method of communicating about patients, no studies have evaluated patient records as a means of transmitting bias from one clinician to another.ObjectiveTo assess whether stigmatizing language written in a patient medical record is associated with a subsequent physician-in-training’s attitudes towards the patient and clinical decision-making.DesignRandomized vignette study of two chart notes employing stigmatizing versus neutral language to describe the same hypothetical patient, a 28-year-old man with sickle cell disease.ParticipantsA total of 413 physicians-in-training: medical students and residents in internal and emergency medicine programs at an urban academic medical center (54% response rate).Main MeasuresAttitudes towards the hypothetical patient using the previously validated Positive Attitudes towards Sickle Cell Patients Scale (range 7–35) and pain management decisions (residents only) using two multiple-choice questions (composite range 2–7 representing intensity of pain treatment).Key ResultsExposure to the stigmatizing language note was associated with more negative attitudes towards the patient (20.6 stigmatizing vs. 25.6 neutral, p < 0.001). Furthermore, reading the stigmatizing language note was associated with less aggressive management of the patient’s pain (5.56 stigmatizing vs. 6.22 neutral, p = 0.003).ConclusionsStigmatizing language used in medical records to describe patients can influence subsequent physicians-in-training in terms of their attitudes towards the patient and their medication prescribing behavior. This is an important and overlooked pathway by which bias can be propagated from one clinician to another. Attention to the language used in medical records may help to promote patient-centered care and to reduce healthcare disparities for stigmatized populations.

AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury would improve patient outcomes of mortality, dialysis, and progression of acute kidney injury.DesignDouble blinded, multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial.SettingSix hospitals (four teaching and two non-teaching) in the Yale New Haven Health System in Connecticut and Rhode Island, US, ranging from small community hospitals to large tertiary care centers.Participants6030 adult inpatients with acute kidney injury, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria.InterventionsAn electronic health record based “pop-up” alert for acute kidney injury with an associated acute kidney injury order set upon provider opening of the patient’s medical record.Main outcome measuresA composite of progression of acute kidney injury, receipt of dialysis, or death within 14 days of randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included outcomes at each hospital and frequency of various care practices for acute kidney injury.Results6030 patients were randomized over 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 653 (21.3%) of 3059 patients with an alert and in 622 (20.9%) of 2971 patients receiving usual care (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.13, P=0.67). Analysis by each hospital showed worse outcomes in the two non-teaching hospitals (n=765, 13%), where alerts were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98, P=0.006). More deaths occurred at these centers (15.6% in the alert group v 8.6% in the usual care group, P=0.003). Certain acute kidney injury care practices were increased in the alert group but did not appear to mediate these outcomes.ConclusionsAlerts did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome among patients in hospital with acute kidney injury. The heterogeneity of effect across clinical centers should lead to a re-evaluation of existing alerting systems for acute kidney injury.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753751.

Digital health data are the lifeblood of a continuous learning health system. A steady flow of reliable data is necessary to coordinate and monitor patient care, analyze and improve systems of care, conduct research to develop new products and approaches, assess the effectiveness of medical interventions, and advance population health. The totality of available health data is a crucial resource that should be considered an invaluable public asset in the pursuit of better care, improved health, and lower health care costs. The ability to collect, share, and use digital health data is rapidly evolving. Increasing adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) is being driven by the implementation of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which pays hospitals and individuals incentives if they can demonstrate that they use basic EHRs in 2011. Only a third had access to the basic features necessary to leverage this information for improvement, such as the ability to view laboratory results, maintain problem lists, or manage prescription ordering. In addition to increased data collection, more organizations are sharing digital health data. Data collected to meet federal reporting requirements or for administrative purposes are becoming more accessible. Efforts such as Health.Data.gov provide access to government datasets for the development of insights and software applications with the goal of improving health. Within the private sector, at least one pharmaceutical company is actively exploring release of some of its clinical trial data for research by others. Digital Data Improvement Priorities for Continuous Learning in Health and Health Care: Workshop Summary summarizes discussions at the March 2012 Institute of Medicine (2012) workshop to identify and characterize the current deficiencies in the reliability, availability, and usability of digital health data and consider strategies, priorities, and responsibilities to address such deficiencies.

\"This is the first comprehensive history of lung cancer, once considered a rare condition and today the leading cause of cancer deaths world-wide. We are used to associating cancer treatment with scientific progress, but a patient diagnosed with lung cancer in 2013 is no more likely to survive the disease for five or more years than a patient undergoing lung cancer surgery in the 1950s. A breakthrough has remained elusive for this condition, now firmly associated with the smoking of cigarettes. Drawing on many unpublished and little-used sources, this book tells the history of lung cancer, of doctors and patients, hopes and fears, expectations and frustrations over the past 200 years, as a rare chest affliction transformed into a major killer. Suggesting that lung cancer is not the only recalcitrant disease, Timmermann asks what happens when medical progress does not seem to make much difference\"-- Provided by publisher.

Electronic records could improve quality and efficiency of health care. National and international bodies propagate this belief worldwide. However, the evidence base concerning the effects and advantages of electronic records is questionable. The outcome of health care systems is influenced by many components, making assertions about specific types of interventions difficult. Moreover, electronic records itself constitute a complex intervention offering several functions with possibly positive as well as negative effects on the outcome of health care systems. The aim of this review is to summarize empirical studies about the value of electronic medical records (EMRs) for hospital care published between 2010 and spring 2019. The authors adopted their method from a series of literature reviews. The literature search was performed on MEDLINE with \"Medical Record System, Computerized\" as the essential keyword. The selection process comprised 2 phases looking for a consent of both authors. Starting with 1345 references, 23 were finally included in the review. The evaluation combined a scoring of the studies' quality, a description of data sources in case of secondary data analyses, and a qualitative assessment of the publications' conclusions concerning the medical record's impact on quality and efficiency of health care. The majority of the studies stemmed from the United States (19/23, 83%). Mostly, the studies used publicly available data (\"secondary data studies\"; 17/23, 74%). A total of 18 studies analyzed the effect of an EMR on the quality of health care (78%), 16 the effect on the efficiency of health care (70%). The primary data studies achieved a mean score of 4.3 (SD 1.37; theoretical maximum 10); the secondary data studies a mean score of 7.1 (SD 1.26; theoretical maximum 9). From the primary data studies, 2 demonstrated a reduction of costs. There was not one study that failed to demonstrate a positive effect on the quality of health care. Overall, 9/16 respective studies showed a reduction of costs (56%); 14/18 studies showed an increase of health care quality (78%); the remaining 4 studies missed explicit information about the proposed positive effect. This review revealed a clear evidence about the value of EMRs. In addition to an awesome majority of economic advantages, the review also showed improvements in quality of care by all respective studies. The use of secondary data studies has prevailed over primary data studies in the meantime. Future work could focus on specific aspects of electronic records to guide their implementation and operation.

\" Holland provides a deft philosophical guide to a wide range of complex issues in the collection, storage and use of public health data. His overarching argument, that concerns about informational privacy have gone too far, is well-developed; researchers, regulators and ethicists should all reflect on it\"--Back cover.

Engaging patients in the delivery of health care has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication. The aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on health care delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology and areas that require further research. A systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL, and Embase databases was conducted using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records, and patient portals and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) for systematic review articles and the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (eg, portal design), process factors (eg, portal use), and output factors (eg, benefits) and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (ie, positive, negative, or mixed). The systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The inputs category was addressed by 40 articles, while the processes and outputs categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively: 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories, and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high- to very high-quality, 21 had medium quality, and 18 had low- to very low-quality. Findings in the inputs category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients' privacy concerns and lack of encouragement from providers were among portal adoption barriers while information access and patient-provider communication were among facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the processes category, sociodemographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal use; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized health education, and nonclinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their health care teams. In the outputs category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions as inadequate but others as useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, and patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes. While the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications, and providing patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve, and evaluate their impact.