Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Patient-physician web messaging

The impact on message volume and satisfaction

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

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients want electronic access to providers. Providers fear being overwhelmed by unreimbursed messages.

OBJECTIVE: Measure the effects of patient-physician web messaging on primary care practices.

DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective analysis of 6 case and 9 control internal medicine (IM) and family practice (FP) physicians’ message volume, and a survey of 5,971 patients’ web messaging with 267 providers and staff in 16 community primary care clinics in the Sacramento, CA region.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Case telephone volume was 18.2% lower (P=.002) and fell 6.50 times faster than control. Case total telephone plus web message volume was 13.7% lower (P=.025) and fell 5.84 times faster than control. Surveys were responded to by 40.3% (1,743/4,320) of patients and 61.4% (164/267) of providers and staff. Patients were overwhelmingly satisfied and providers and staff were generally satisfied; both found the system easy to use. Patient satisfaction correlated strongly with provider response time (Γ=0.557), and provider/staff satisfaction with computer skills (Γ=0.626) (Goodman-Kruskal Gamma [Γ] measure of ordinal association).

CONCLUSIONS: Secure web messaging improves on e-mail with encryption, access controls, message templates, customized message and prescription routing, knowledge content, and reimbursement. Further study is needed to determine whether reducing telephone traffic through the use of web messaging decreases provider interruptions and increases clinical efficiency during the workday. Satisfaction with web messaging may increase patient retention.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bertakis KD. The communication of information from physician to patient: a method for increasing patient retention and satisfaction. J Fam Pract. 1977;5:217–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Roter DL, Hall JA, Kern DE, Barker LR, Cole KA, Roca RP. Improving physicians’ interviewing skills and reducing patients’ emotional distress. A randomized clinical trial. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1877–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Greene MG, Adelman RD, Friedmann E, Charon R. Older patient satisfaction with communication during an initial medical encounter. Soc Sci Med. 1994;38:1279–88.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Waitzkin H. Doctor-patient communication. Clinical implications of social scientific research. JAMA. 1984;252:2441–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Korsch BM. What do patients and parents want to know? What do they need to know? Pediatrics. 1984;74(pt 2):917–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277:553–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Radecki SE, Neville RE, Girard RA. Telephone patient management by primary care physicians. Med Care. 1989;27:817–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Studdiford JS III, Panitch KN, Snyderman DA, Pharr ME. The telephone in primary care. Prim Care. 1996;23:83–102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Greenlick MR, Freeborn DK, Gambill GL, Pope CR. Determinants of medical care utilization: the role of the telephone in total medical care. Med Care. 1973;11:121–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kane B, Sands DZ. Guidelines for the clinical use of electronic mail with patients The AMIA Internet working group, task force on guidelines for the use of clinic-patient electronic mail. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1998;5:104–11.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Couchman GR, Forjuoh SN, Rascoe TG. Email communications in family practice: what do patients expect? J Fam Pract. 2001;50:414–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Balas EA, Jaffrey F, Kuperman GJ, et al. Electronic communication with patients Evaluation of distance medicine technology. JAMA. 1997;278:152–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Institute of Medicine. Key capabilities of an electronic health record. National Academies Press. July 31, 2003:9–17. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/html/ehr/NI000427.pdf. Accessed August 6, 2003.

  14. Harris Interactive. Those with Internet access to continue to grow but at a slower rate. The Harris Poll #8. February 5, 2003. Available at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

  15. Lenhart A, Horrigan J, Rainie L, et al. The ever shifting Internet population: a new look at Internet access and the digital divide. The Pew Internet and American Life Project. April 16, 2003. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org. Accessed March 14, 2003.

  16. Harris Interactive. Internet penetration at 66% of adults (137 million) nationwide. The Harris Poll #18. April 17, 2002. Available at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

  17. Harris Interactive. Patient/physician online communication: many patients want it, would pay for it, and it would influence their choice of doctors and health plans. Health Care News. April 10, 2002;2(8):1–4. Available at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Harris Interactive. The increased impact of eHealth on physician behavior. Health Care News. November 13, 2001;1(31):1–14. Available at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harris Interactive. New data show Internet, website and email usage by physicians all increasing. Health Care News. February, 26, 2001;1(8):1–3. Available at: http://www.harrisinteractive.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deloitte Research and Fulcrum Analytics 2002. Taking the pulse: physicians and emerging information technologies. Available at: http://www.dc.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

  21. Landro L. New guidelines to make doctor-patient emails profitable, less risky. Wall Street Journal. January 25, 2002:A13.

    Google Scholar 

  22. American College of Physicians. The Changing Face of Ambulatory Medicine—Reimbursing Physicians for Computer-based Care: ACP Analysis and Recommendations to Assure Fair Reimbursement for Physician Care Rendered Online. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians; 2003;Policy Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Moyer CA, Stern DT, Dobias KS, Cox DT, Katz SJ. Bridging the electronic divide: patient and provider perspectives on email communication in primary care. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8:427–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kleiner KD, Akers R, Burke BL, Werner EJ. Parent and physician attitudes regarding electronic communication in pediatric practices. Pediatrics. 2002;109:740–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mandl KD, Kohane IS, Brandt AM. Electronic patient-physician communication: problems and promise. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129:495–500.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Sittig DF, King S, Hazlehurst BL. A survey of patient-provider email communication: what do patients think? Int J Med Inform. 2001;61:71–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Katz SJ, Moyer CA, Cox DT, Stern DT. Effect of a triage-based email system on clinic resource use and patient and physician satisfaction in primary care. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18:736–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ellis JE, Klock PA, Mingay DJ, Roizen MF. Use of electronic mail for postoperative follow-up after ambulatory surgery. J Clin Anesth. 1999;11:136–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Neinstein L. Utilization of electronic communication (email) with patients at university and college health centers. J Adolesc Health. 2000;27:6–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Liederman EM, Morefield CS. Web messaging: a new tool for patient-physician communication. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:260–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. The RelayHealth webVisit Study. Final report. January 2003. Available at: http://www.relayhealth.com. Accessed March 14, 2003.

  32. Borowitz SM, Wyatt JC. The origin, content, and workload of email consultations. JAMA. 1998;280:1321–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Penson RT, Benson RC, Parles K, Chabner BA, Lynch TJ Jr. Virtual connections: Internet health care. Oncologist. 2002;7:555–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Holmes BJ, Bishop LF. The uninsured are not technology slouches. Forrester Research. September 2003. Available at: http://www.forrester.com. Accessed November 12, 2003.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eric M. Liederman MD, MPH.

Additional information

There are no conflicts of interest by the authors.

No financial support was received for this research, although the RelayHealth Corporation provided in-kind support.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liederman, E.M., Lee, J.C., Baquero, V.H. et al. Patient-physician web messaging. J GEN INTERN MED 20, 52–57 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40009.x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40009.x

Key Words

Navigation