%0 Journal Article
%T Window of Opportunity: Patient Portals and Cancer
%A Bryan D. Steitz
%A Jeremy L. Warner
%A S. Trent Rosenbloom
%J General Information | Journal of Oncology Practice
%D 2018
%R https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.18.00464
%X McCleary et al1 evaluate electronic patient portal (PP) uptake among individuals receiving ongoing cancer care. This is an important issue, because PPs provide a strong support tool for patients with complex health conditions. In most cases, a diagnosis of cancer is not only psychologically overwhelming but also presages a complex and convoluted treatment experience. With the exception of some early-stage cancers, the cancer will require multiple modes of treatment extending over weeks, months, and even years. During the treatment and post-treatment surveillance periods, patients and caregivers will be challenged to track symptoms, appointments, results from medical testing, and often several self-administered medications. An evolving body of research, most notably the trial published in 2017 by Basch et al,2 suggests that engagement outside the professional medical setting can improve outcomes, including overall survival. Notably, that trial involved outreach by telephone call but anticipated the role that technology could have in facilitating interactions outside the clinic. In 2018, the PP is the most prominent technology tool for outreach and engagement. As a result of several regulatory, technical, and cultural phenomena, electronic health record (EHR) systems have become nearly ubiquitous in hospitals and clinical organizations that manage cancer. PPs, an increasingly important component of EHR systems, have become widespread. Although modern PPs in EHR systems have existed for more than two decades, their implementation has grown substantially in recent years. PPs commonly offer users the ability to view and interact with their medical records, send and receive secure messages to their health care providers, request and manage clinical appointments, and share access with other family members or caregivers. These functions are critical to engaging patients who are managing chronic medical conditions such as cancer. We also note that although PPs are commonly implemented functions, each institution¡¯s PP may be configured differently. Some PPs may not include all functions whereas others may offer additional features. In the article by McCleary et al,1 the authors have taken a multipronged approach to PPs in oncology. By using mixed methods, they sought to elicit the willingness of patients with cancer to use portals and the barriers to using them. Then they undertook a quality improvement project to increase enrollment in their institutional PP. Their study is particularly interesting because it evaluates two different PPs implemented at a single
%U http://ascopubs.org/doi/full/10.1200/JOP.18.00464