Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Comparing Electronic Health Record Portals to Obtain Patient-Entered Family Health History in Primary Care

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

There is growing interest in developing systems to overcome barriers for acquiring and interpreting family health histories in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the capacity of three different electronic portals to collect family history from patients and deposit valid data in an electronic health record (EHR).

DESIGN

Pilot trial.

PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTION

Patients were enrolled from four primary care practices and were asked to collect family health history before a physical exam using either telephone-based interactive voice response (IVR) technology, a secure internet portal, or a waiting room laptop computer, with portal assigned by practice. Intervention practices were compared to a “usual care” practice, where there was no standard workflow to document family history (663 participants in the three intervention arms were compared to 296 participants from the control practice).

MAIN MEASURES

New documentation of any family history in a coded EHR field within 30 days of the visit. Secondary outcomes included participation rates and validity.

KEY RESULTS

Demographics varied by clinic. Documentation of new family history data was significantly higher, but modest, in each of the three intervention clinics (7.5 % for IVR clinic, 20.3 % for laptop clinic, and 23.1 % for patient portal clinic) versus the control clinic (1.7 %). Patient-entered data on common conditions in first degree relatives was confirmed as valid by a genetic counselor for the majority of cases (ranging from 64 to 82 % in the different arms).

CONCLUSIONS

Within primary care practices, valid patient entered family health history data can be obtained electronically at higher rates than a standard of care that depends on provider-entered data. Further research is needed to determine how best to match different portals to individual patient preference, how the tools can best be integrated with provider workflow, and to assess how they impact the use of screening and prevention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. Claassen L, Henneman L, Janssens AC, et al. Using family history information to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent diseases; a discussion of the evidence. BMC Publ Health. 2010;10:248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sabatino SA, Habarta N, Baron RC, et al. Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(1 Suppl):S67–S74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Awareness of family health history as a risk factor for disease--United States, 2004. Mmwr. 2004;53(44):1044–1047.

  4. Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–641.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murff HJ, Greevy RA, Syngal S. The comprehensiveness of family cancer history assessments in primary care. Community Genet. 2007;10(3):174–180.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wilson BJ, Qureshi N, Santaguida P, et al. Systematic review: family history in risk assessment for common diseases. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(12):878–885.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Yoon PW, Scheuner MT, Jorgensen C, Khoury MJ. Developing family healthware, a family history screening tool to prevent common chronic diseases. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009;6(1):A33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Berg AO, Baird MA, Botkin JR, et al. National institutes of health state-of-the-science conference statement: family history and improving Health. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(12):872–877.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M. The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med. Jul 13 2010.

  10. Qureshi N, Armstrong S, Dhiman P, et al. Effect of adding systematic family history enquiry to cardiovascular disease risk assessment in primary care: a matched-pair, cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(4):253–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Doerr M, Teng K. Family history: Still relevant in the genomics era. Cleve Clin J Med. 2012;79(5):331–336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lupski JR, Reid JG, Gonzaga-Jauregui C, et al. Whole-genome sequencing in a patient with Charcot-Marie-Tooth neuropathy. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1181–1191.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Poon EG, Wald J, Bates DW, Middleton B, Kuperman GJ, Gandhi TK. Supporting patient care beyond the clinical encounter: three informatics innovations from partners health care. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003:1072.

  14. Facio FM, Feero WG, Linn A, Oden N, Manickam K, Biesecker LG. Validation of my family health portrait for six common heritable conditions. Genet Med. 2010;12(6):370–375.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Qureshi N, Wilson B, Santaguida P, et al. Collection and Use of Cancer Family History in Primary Care. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lorence D, Park H. Group disparities and health information: a study of online access for the underserved. Health Inform J. 2008;14(1):29–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Qureshi N, Wilson B, Santaguida P, et al. Collection and use of cancer family history in primary care. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2007(159):1–84.

  18. Orlando LA, Hauser ER, Christianson C, et al. Protocol for implementation of family health history collection and decision support into primary care using a computerized family health history system. BMC Heal Serv Res. 2011;11:264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Suther S, Goodson P. Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 2003;5(2):70–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Health Information Technology: Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 2014 Edition; Revisions tothe Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology. In: Services DoHaH, ed. Vol 45 CFR Part 170. Federal Register2012.

  21. Ruffin MT, Nease DE, Ruffin MT, Nease DE Jr, Sen A, et al. Effect of preventive messages tailored to family history on health behaviors: the Family Healthware Impact Trial. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(1):3–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Emery J, Morris H, Goodchild R, et al. The GRAIDS Trial: a cluster randomised controlled trial of computer decision support for the management of familial cancer risk in primary care. Br J Cancer. 2007;97(4):486–493.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Acheson LS, Zyzanski SJ, Stange KC, Deptowicz A, Wiesner GL. Validation of a self-administered, computerized tool for collecting and displaying the family history of cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(34):5395–5402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Baer HJ, Schneider LI, Colditz GA, et al. Evaluation of a web-based risk assessment tool in the primary care setting. Paper presented at: Society for General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting, 2012; Orlando, FL.

  25. Krist AH, Woolf SH, Rothemich SF, et al. Interactive preventive health record to enhance delivery of recommended care: a randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2012;10(4):312–319.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wright A, Poon EG, Wald J, et al. Randomized controlled trial of health maintenance reminders provided directly to patients through an electronic PHR. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(1):85–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Simon C, Acheson L, Burant C, et al. Patient interest in recording family histories of cancer via the Internet. Genet Med. 2008;10(12):895–902.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Qureshi N, Armstrong S, Dhiman P, et al. Effect of adding systematic family history enquiry to cardiovascular disease risk assessment in primary care: a matched-pair, cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(4):253–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Vogel TJ, Stoops K, Bennett RL, Miller M, Swisher EM. A self-administered family history questionnaire improves identification of women who warrant referral to genetic counseling for hereditary cancer risk. Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(3):693–698.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Smith RA, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Kalager M. Clinical decisions. Mammography screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):e31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by Award Number RC1HG005331 using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds from the National Human Genome Research Institute, and by Award Number U54CA163307 from the National Cancer Institute.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer S. Haas MD, MSc.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(PDF 44 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Murray, M.F., Giovanni, M.A., Klinger, E. et al. Comparing Electronic Health Record Portals to Obtain Patient-Entered Family Health History in Primary Care. J GEN INTERN MED 28, 1558–1564 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2442-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-013-2442-0

KEY WORDS

Navigation