Display Settings:

Items per page
We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

Results: 8

1.
Figure 8.

Figure 8. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Figure 8▶ illustrates that the web was the preferred communication method for non-urgent problems by 11/21 (52%) of the staff, while 6 (28.6%) favored the phone, 2 (9.5%) preferred office visits and 2 had no preference.

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
2.
Figure 5.

Figure 5. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Figure 5▶ shows how easy the staff considered the system to use. Eight staff members (38%) found the system “very easy” to use, and the same number found the system “easy” to use. Only two clinic personnel (9.5%) found it “difficult” to use.

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
3.
Figure 2.

Figure 2. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Of 232 patients who used the system, Figure 2▶ shows that 61.2% (142) reported being “very satisfied” and 24.6% (57) “satisfied” with this method of communication. In contrast, 4.3% (10) were “somewhat dissatisfied,” and 1.7% (4) were “very dissatisfied,” while 8.2% (19) had no opinion. The main reason for dissatisfaction was the lack or slow response from the clinic.

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
4.
Figure 6.

Figure 6. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Figure 6▶ shows three clinicians (37.5%) perceived communication was “better” and 2 (25%) believed it to be “much better” between themselves and patients using the system. Three front office workers (75%) also perceived “better” communication. Two MAs, (22.2%) felt communication with patients was “better,” 2 (22.2%) felt it was “much better” while 1 (11.1%) believed it had “gotten worse” and 1 (11.1%) thought it had “gotten much worse.”

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
5.
Figure 7.

Figure 7. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Figure 7▶ illustrates 38% (8/21) of clinic staff rated communicating with patients using web messaging “much better” than a phone conversation and 5 (23.8%) rated it “better.” In contrast, only 3 (14.3%) believe it to be “much worse” and 2 (9.5%) “worse” than phone conversations. Interestingly, no clerical staff found this method worse.

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
6.
Figure 3.

Figure 3. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

As Figure 3▶ shows, all patients receiving a response right away (31) were very satisfied and 73.8% (76) were very satisfied if they received a response by the next business day. The Goodman-Kruskal Gamma estimate of agreement between satisfaction and timely responses from providers was statistically different from zero and indicated a moderately high degree of ordinal association (χ = 0.667, 95% CI = 0.546–0.789).

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
7.
Figure 4.

Figure 4. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Figure 4▶ provides the results of overall user satisfaction. Five of 8 clinicians (62.5%) were “satisfied,” and 1 (12.5%) was “very satisfied” with the system. The opinion of the remaining 2 was “neutral” (one of these had just started using the system the previous day). Three of four (75%) front office workers were neutral on this issue while the remaining clerk (25%) reported being satisfied. In contrast, only 2/9 MAs (22%) were satisfied, while 2 were “dissatisfied” and 2 were “very dissatisfied.” Reasons cited for being displeased revolved around the inadequate speed of the computers and the extra workload involved.

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.
8.
Figure 1.

Figure 1. From: Web Messaging: A New Tool for Patient-Physician Communication.

Figure 1▶ reveals the total number of enrolled patients and the number of messages received from patients during two-week time intervals from system initiation through 6/23/02. At the time of the patient survey, 826 IM/FP patients had enrolled in the system, and 2275 total incoming messages had been received. Of these, 398 were consults, 175 appointment requests, 120 test result requests, 112 medication refill requests, and 78 referral requests. During the final two-week period, 187 messages came in, and the most active web-messaging clinician, Physician B, received 63 messages and had 250 enrolled patients.

Eric M. Liederman, et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):260-270.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Write to the Help Desk