Physicians differ in their perceptions of sensitive medical records: Survey and interview study

Author:

Banerjee Ipsha1ORCID,Syed Kazi1,Potturu Aishwarya1,Pragada Venkata SVS1,Sharma Rishika S1,Murcko Anita1ORCID,Chern Darwyn2,Todd Michael3,Aking Padma4,Al-Yaqoobi Ali5,Bayless Patricia6,Belmonte Winona2,Cuadra Teresa7,Dockins Trudy2,Eldredge Christina8,El-Kareh Robert9,Gale Gregory10,Gentile Edward11,Kalpas Edward112,Morris Meghan112,Mueller Laurel13,Piekut Dorothy2,Ross Mindy K14ORCID,Sarris John2,Singh Gagandeep5,Tharani Shalini2,Wallace Mark15,Grando Maria Adela1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Arizona State University, Scottsdale, AZ, US

2. Copa Health, Phoenix, AZ, US

3. Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, US

4. Trinity Integrated Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, US

5. University of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, US

6. Creighton University, Phoenix, AZ, US

7. New York City Zen Center for Contemplative Care, New York, NY, US

8. University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, US

9. University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, US

10. United States, Scottsdale, AZ, US

11. Optum Behavioral Health, Tucson, AZ, US

12. HonorHealth, Scottsdale, AZ, US

13. Arizona Osteopathic Medical Association, Phoenix, AZ, US

14. University of California, Los Angeles, CA, US

15. Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, US

Abstract

Physician categorizations of electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., depression) into sensitive data categories (e.g., Mental Health) and their perspectives on the adequacy of the categories to classify medical record data were assessed. One thousand data items from patient EHR were classified by 20 physicians (10 psychiatrists paired with ten non-psychiatrist physicians) into data categories via a survey. Cluster-adjusted chi square tests and mixed models were used for analysis. 10 items were selected per each physician pair (100 items in total) for discussion during 20 follow-up interviews. Interviews were thematically analyzed. Survey item categorization yielded 500 (50.0%) agreements, 175 (17.5%) disagreements, 325 (32.5%) partial agreements. Categorization disagreements were associated with physician specialty and implied patient history. Non-psychiatrists selected significantly ( p = .016) more data categories than psychiatrists when classifying data items. The endorsement of Mental Health and Substance Use categories were significantly ( p = .001) related for both provider types. During thematic analysis, Encounter Diagnosis (100%), Problems (95%), Health Concerns (90%), and Medications (85%) were discussed the most when deciding the sensitivity of medical information. Most (90.0%) interview participants suggested adding additional data categories. Study findings may guide the evolution of digital patient-controlled granular data sharing technology and processes.

Funder

National Institute of Mental Health

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Informatics

Cited by 1 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