Unsolicited Patient Complaints Following the 21st Century Cures Act Information-Blocking Rule

Author:

Dambrino Robert J.12,Domenico Henry J.34,Graves John A.2,Buntin Melinda J. B.256,Martinez William7,Rosenbloom S. Trent789,Cooper William O.248

Affiliation:

1. Department of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

2. Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

3. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

4. Center for Patient and Professional Advocacy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

5. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

6. Carey Business School, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

7. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

8. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

9. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee

Abstract

ImportanceThe 21st Century Cures Act includes an information-blocking rule (IBR) that requires health systems to provide patients with immediate access to their health information in the electronic medical record upon request. Patients accessing their health information before they receive an explanation from their health care team may experience confusion and may be more likely to share unsolicited patient complaints (UPCs) with their health care organization.ObjectiveTo evaluate the quantity of UPCs about physicians before and after IBR implementation and to identify themes in UPCs that may identify patient confusion, fear, or anger related to the release of information.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study was conducted with an interrupted time-series analysis of UPCs spanning January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022. The data were obtained from a single academic medical center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, at which the IBR was implemented on January 20, 2021. Data analysis was performed from January 11 to July 15, 2023.ExposureImplementation of the IBR on January 20, 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the monthly rate of UPCs before and after IBR implementation. A qualitative analysis was performed for UPCs received after IBR implementation. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare monthly complaints between the pre- and post-IBR groups. The Pearson χ2 test was used to compare proportions of complaints by UPC category between time periods.ResultsThe medical center received 8495 UPCs during the study period: 3022 over 12 months before and 5473 over 18 months after institutional IBR implementation. There was no difference in the monthly proportions of UPCs per 1000 patient encounters before (median, 0.81 [IQR, 0.75-0.88]) and after (median, 0.83 [IQR, 0.77-0.89]) IBR implementation (difference in medians, −0.02 [95% CI, −0.12 to 0.07]; P =.86). Segmented regression analysis revealed no difference in monthly UPCs (β [SE], 0.03 [0.09]; P =.72).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, implementation of the Cures Act IBR was not associated with an increase in monthly rates of UPCs. These findings suggest that review of UPCs identified as IBR-specific complaints may allow clinicians and organizations to prepare patients that their test and procedure results may be available before clinicians are able to review them and respond.

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy

Reference30 articles.

1. The 21st Century Cures Act: a view from the NIH.;Hudson;N Engl J Med,2017

2. 21st Century Cures Act: interoperability, information blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program.;Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology;Fed Regist,2020

3. 21st Century Cures Act: patient-facing implications of information blocking.;Mehan;J Am Coll Radiol,2021

4. Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead.;Delbanco;Ann Intern Med,2012

5. Oncology health-care professionals’ perceived effects of patient accessible electronic health records 6 years after launch: a survey study at a major university hospital in Sweden.;Moll;Health Informatics J,2020

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3