Improving maternity care using a personal health record: study protocol for a stepped-wedge, randomised, controlled trial

Using electronic patient records to assess the effect of a complex antenatal intervention in a cluster randomised controlled trial-data management experience from the DESiGN Trial team

BACKGROUND

The use of electronic patient records for assessing outcomes in clinical trials is a methodological strategy intended to drive faster and more cost-efficient acquisition of results. The aim of this manuscript was to outline the data collection and management considerations of a maternity and perinatal clinical trial using data from electronic patient records, exemplifying the DESiGN Trial as a case study.

METHODS

The DESiGN Trial is a cluster randomised control trial assessing the effect of a complex intervention versus standard care for identifying small for gestational age foetuses. Data on maternal/perinatal characteristics and outcomes including infants admitted to neonatal care, parameters from foetal ultrasound and details of hospital activity for health-economic evaluation were collected at two time points from four types of electronic patient records held in 22 different electronic record systems at the 13 research clusters. Data were pseudonymised on site using a bespoke Microsoft Excel macro and securely transferred to the central data store. Data quality checks were undertaken. Rules for data harmonisation of the raw data were developed and a data dictionary produced, along with rules and assumptions for data linkage of the datasets. The dictionary included descriptions of the rationale and assumptions for data harmonisation and quality checks.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 182,052 babies from 178,350 pregnancies in 165,397 unique women. Data availability and completeness varied across research sites; each of eight variables which were key to calculation of the primary outcome were completely missing in median 3 (range 1-4) clusters at the time of the first data download. This improved by the second data download following clarification of instructions to the research sites (each of the eight key variables were completely missing in median 1 (range 0-1) cluster at the second time point). Common data management challenges were harmonising a single variable from multiple sources and categorising free-text data, solutions were developed for this trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Conduct of clinical trials which use electronic patient records for the assessment of outcomes can be time and cost-effective but still requires appropriate time and resources to maximise data quality. A difficulty for pregnancy and perinatal research in the UK is the wide variety of different systems used to collect patient data across maternity units. In this manuscript, we describe how we managed this and provide a detailed data dictionary covering the harmonisation of variable names and values that will be helpful for other researchers working with these data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Primary registry and trial identifying number: ISRCTN 67698474 . Registered on 02/11/16.

Adult patient access to electronic health records

BACKGROUND

To support patient-centred care, healthcare organisations increasingly offer patients access to data stored in the institutional electronic health record (EHR).

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective 1. To assess the effects of providing adult patients with access to electronic health records (EHRs) alone or with additional functionalities on a range of patient, patient-provider, and health resource consumption outcomes, including patient knowledge and understanding, patient empowerment, patient adherence, patient satisfaction with care, adverse events, health-related quality of life, health-related outcomes, psychosocial health outcomes, health resource consumption, and patient-provider communication. Secondary objective 1. To assess whether effects of providing adult patients with EHR access alone versus EHR access with additional functionalities differ among patient groups according to age, educational level, or different status of disease (chronic or acute).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus in June 2017 and in April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials of EHR access with or without additional functionalities for adults with any medical condition.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 78 to 4500 participants and follow-up from 3 to 24 months. Nine studies assessed the effects of EHR with additional functionalities, each addressing a subset of outcomes sought by this review. Five studies focused on patients with diabetes mellitus, four on patients with specific diseases, and one on all patients. All studies compared EHR access alone or with additional functionalities plus usual care versus usual care only. No studies assessing the effects of EHR access alone versus EHR access with additional functionalities were identified. Interventions required a variety of data within the EHR, such as patient history, problem list, medication, allergies, and lab results. In addition to EHR access, eight studies allowed patients to share self-documented data, seven offered individualised disease management functions, seven offered educational disease-related information, six supported secure communication, and one offered preventive reminders. Only two studies were at low or unclear risk of bias across domains. Meta-analysis could not be performed, as participants, interventions, and outcomes were too heterogeneous, and most studies presented results based on different adjustment methods or variables. The quality of evidence was rated as low or very low across outcomes. Overall differences between intervention and control groups, if any, were small. The relevance of any small effects remains unclear for most outcomes because in most cases, trial authors did not define a minimal clinically important difference. Overall, results suggest that the effects of EHR access alone and with additional functionalities are mostly uncertain when compared with usual care. Patient knowledge and understanding: very low-quality evidence is available from one study, so we are uncertain about effects of the intervention on patient knowledge about diabetes and blood glucose testing. Patient empowerment: low-quality evidence from three studies suggests that the intervention may have little or no effect on patient empowerment measures. Patient adherence: low-quality evidence from two studies suggests that the intervention may slightly improve adherence to the process of monitoring risk factors and preventive services. Effects on medication adherence are conflicting in two studies; this may or may not improve to a clinically relevant degree. Patient satisfaction with care: low-quality evidence from three studies suggests that the intervention may have little or no effect on patient satisfaction, with conflicting results. Adverse events: two small studies reported on mortality; one of these also reported on serious and other adverse events, but sample sizes were too small for small differences to be detected. Therefore, low-quality evidence suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on mortality and other adverse events. Health-related quality of life: only very low-quality evidence from one study is available. We are uncertain whether the intervention improves disease-specific quality of life of patients with asthma. Health-related outcomes: low-quality evidence from eight studies suggests that the intervention may have little to no effect on asthma control, glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein or total cholesterol levels, body mass index or weight, or 10-year Framingham risk scores. Low-quality evidence from one study suggests that the composite scores of risk factors for diabetes mellitus may improve slightly with the intervention, but there is uncertainty about effects on ophthalmic medications or intraocular pressure. Psychosocial health outcomes: no study investigated psychosocial health outcomes in a more than anecdotal way. Health resource consumption: low-quality evidence for adult patients in three studies suggests that there may be little to no effect of the intervention on different measures of healthcare use. Patient-provider communication: very low-quality evidence is available from a single small study, and we are uncertain whether the intervention improves communication measures, such as the number of messages sent.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of EHR access with additional functionalities in comparison with usual care for the most part are uncertain. Only adherence to the process of monitoring risk factors and providing preventive services as well as a composite score of risk factors for diabetes mellitus may improve slightly with EHR access with additional functionalities. Due to inconsistent terminology in this area, our search may have missed relevant studies. As the overall quality of evidence is very low to low, future research is likely to change these results. Further trials should investigate the impact of EHR access in a broader range of countries and clinical settings, including more patients over a longer period of follow-up, as this may increase the likelihood of detecting effects of the intervention, should these exist. More studies should focus on assessing outcomes such as patient empowerment and behavioural outcomes, rather than concentrating on health-related outcomes alone. Future studies should distinguish between effects of EHR access only and effects of additional functionalities, and investigate the impact of mobile EHR tools. Future studies should include information on usage patterns, and consider the potential for widening health inequalities with implementation of EHR access. A taxonomy for EHR access and additional functionalities should be developed to promote consistency and comparability of outcome measures, and facilitate future reviews by better enabling cross-study comparisons.

Use and Effects of Patient Access to Medical Records in General Practice Through a Personal Health Record in the Netherlands: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Study

Background

In the Dutch health care system, general practitioners hold a central position. They store information from all health care providers who are involved with their patients in their electronic health records. Web-based access to the summary record in general practice through a personal health record (PHR) may increase patients’ insight into their medical conditions and help them to be involved in their care.

Objective

We describe the protocol that we will use to investigate the utilization of patients’ digital access to the summary of their medical records in general practice through a PHR and its effects on the involvement of patients in their care.

Methods

We will conduct a multilevel mixed-methods study in which the PHR and Web-based access to the summary record will be offered for 6 months to a random sample of 500 polypharmacy patients, 500 parents of children aged <4 years, and 500 adults who do not belong to the former two groups. At the patient level, a controlled before-after study will be conducted using surveys, and concurrently, qualitative data will be collected from focus group discussions, think-aloud observations, and semistructured interviews. At the general practice staff (GP staff) level, focus group discussions will be conducted at baseline and Q-methodology inquiries at the end of the study period. The primary outcomes at the patient level are barriers and facilitators for using the PHR and summary records and changes in taking an active role in decision making and care management and medication adherence. Outcomes at the GP staff level are attitudes before and opinions after the implementation of the intervention. Patient characteristics and changes in outcomes related to patient involvement during the study period will be compared between the users and nonusers of the intervention using chi-square tests and t tests. A thematic content analysis of the qualitative data will be performed, and the results will be used to interpret quantitative findings.

Results

Enrollment was completed in May 2017 and the possibility to view GP records through the PHR was implemented in December 2017. Data analysis is currently underway and the first results are expected to be submitted for publication in autumn 2019.

Conclusions

We expect that the findings of this study will be useful to health care providers and health care organizations that consider introducing the use of PHR and Web-based access to records and to those who have recently started using these.

Trial Registration

Netherlands Trial Registry NTR6395; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6395 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/71nc8jzwM)

Registered Report Identifier

RR1-10.2196/10193