The organizational dynamics enabling patient portal impacts upon organizational performance and patient health: a qualitative study of Kaiser Permanente.

BackgroundPatient portals may lead to enhanced disease management, health plan retention, changes in channel utilization, and lower environmental waste. However, despite growing research on patient portals and their effects, our understanding of the organizational dynamics that explain how effects come about is limited.MethodsThis paper uses qualitative methods to advance our understanding of the organizational dynamics that influence the impact of a patient portal on organizational performance and patient health. The study setting is Kaiser Permanente, the world's largest not-for-profit integrated delivery system, which has been using a portal for over ten years. We interviewed eighteen physician leaders and executives particularly knowledgeable about the portal to learn about how they believe the patient portal works and what organizational factors affect its workings. Our analytical framework centered on two research questions. (1) How does the patient portal impact care delivery to produce the documented effects?; and (2) What are the important organizational factors that influence the patient portal's development?ResultsWe identify five ways in which the patient portal may impact care delivery to produce reported effects. First, the portal's ability to ease access to services improves some patients' satisfaction as well as changes the way patients seek care. Second, the transparency and activation of information enable some patients to better manage their care. Third, care management may also be improved through augmented patient-physician interaction. This augmented interaction may also increase the 'stickiness' of some patients to their providers. Forth, a similar effect may be triggered by a closer connection between Kaiser Permanente and patients, which may reduce the likelihood that patients will switch health plans. Finally, the portal may induce efficiencies in physician workflow and administrative tasks, stimulating certain operational savings and deeper involvement of patients in medical decisions. Moreover, our analysis illuminated seven organizational factors of particular importance to the portal's development--and thereby ability to impact care delivery: alignment with financial incentives, synergy with existing IT infrastructure and operations, physician-led governance, inclusive decision making and knowledge sharing, regional flexibility to implementation, continuous innovation, and emphasis on patient-centered design.ConclusionsThese findings show how organizational dynamics enable the patient portal to affect care delivery by summoning organization-wide support for and use of a portal that meets patient needs

Quality assurance of rectal cancer diagnosis and treatment - phase 3 : statistical methods to benchmark centres on a set of quality indicators

In 2004, the Belgian Section for Colorectal Surgery, a section of the Royal Belgian Society for Surgery, decided to start PROCARE (PROject on CAncer of the REctum), a multidisciplinary, profession-driven and decentralized project with as main objectives the reduction of diagnostic and therapeutic variability and improvement of outcome in patients with rectal cancer. All medical specialties involved in the care of rectal cancer established a multidisciplinary steering group in 2005. They agreed to approach the stated goal by means of treatment standardization through guidelines, implementation of these guidelines and quality assurance through registration and feedback. In 2007, the PROCARE guidelines were updated (Procare Phase I, KCE report 69). In 2008, a set of 40 process and outcome quality of care indicators (QCI) was developed and organized into 8 domains of care: general, diagnosis/staging, neoadjuvant treatment, surgery, adjuvant treatment, palliative treatment, follow-up and histopathologic examination. These QCIs were tested on the prospective PROCARE database and on an administrative (claims) database (Procare Phase II, KCE report 81). Afterwards, 4 QCIs were added by the PROCARE group. Centres have been receiving feedback from the PROCARE registry on these QCIs with a description of the distribution of the unadjusted centre-averaged observed measures and the centre’s position therein. To optimize this feedback, centres should ideally be informed of their risk-adjusted outcomes and be given some benchmarks. The PROCARE Phase III study is devoted to developing a methodology to achieve this feedback