Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The emerging role of online communication between patients and their providers

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

Abstract

Despite the explosion of online communication in the community, its use between patients and their health care providers remains low. However, rapidly growing patient and provider interest in using online communication has motivated organizations to consider options for deploying these new tools in clinical practice. In this paper, we describe the barriers and challenges health care providers and their organizations must address in developing and deploying these new tools. We formulate lessons from early experiences with e-mail and web-based communication in clinical settings. Finally, we provide a roadmap for developing and deploying these new tools in clinical practice. Health care providers and their organizations will need to consider issues related to technology, data management, operations, communication management, and financial support in order to successfully deploy online services and communication for patients in clinical settings.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Stange KC, Zysanski SJ, Jaen CR, et al. Illuminating the “black box.” A description of 4,454 patient visits to 138 family physicians. J Fam Pract. 1998;46:377–89.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lin CT, Albertson GA, Schilling LM, et al. Is patients’ perception of time spent with the physician a determinant of ambulatory patient satisfaction? Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:1437–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bower P, Roland M, Campbell J, Mean N. Setting standards based on patients’ views on access and continuity: secondary analysis of data from the general practice assessment survey. BMJ. 2003;326:258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stevenson K, Ion V, Merry M, Sinfield P. Primary care. More than words. Health Serv J. 2003;113:26–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Safran DG. Defining the future of primary care: what can we learn from patients? Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:248–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jeffords R, Scheidt M, Thibadoux GM. Physician-patient electronic communications. Med. Group Manage J. 1999;(suppl):46–9.

  7. 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 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Katz SJ, Nissan N, Moyer CA. Effect of web-based communicating system on clinic resource use and patient and physician satisfaction in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting. 2003. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(suppl 1):207. Abstract.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America IoM. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington DC: The National Academy of Sciences; 2000. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309072808/html/. Accessed June 3, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  12. van der Kam WJ, Meyboom de Jong B, Tromp TF, Moorman PW, van der Lei J. Effects of electronic communication between the GP and the pharmacist, the quality of medication data on admission and after discharge. Fam Pract. 2001;18:605–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. van der Kam WJ, Moorman PW, Koppejan-Mulder MJ. Effects of electronic communication in general practice. Int J Med Inf. 2000;60:59–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. American College of Physicians 2003 Policy Paper. (Available from American College of Physicians, 190 N. Independence Mall West, Philadelphia, Pa 19106).

  16. Maguire P. How one health plan pays physicians for cybercare. ACP Observer. September 2000. Available at: http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/sep00/cybercare.htm. Accessed June 3, 2003.

  17. Wynn P. Paying for cybercare? Health plans study the benefits of reimbursing for e-mail consultations. Health Plan Magazine. 42:42–3.

  18. McNamara D. Feee-based e-mail consultation tested in California. Internal Medicine News. 2002;35:32–34.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Solovy A. E-mail minus “e-mail.” A California study shows that online communication can benefit patients, physicians and payers. Hospital & Health Networks. 2002;76:26.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Relay Health. The RelayHealth Web Visit Study: Final Report. January 2003. Available at: http://www.relayhealth.com/rh/GENERAL/studyResults/webVisitStudyResults.pdf. Accessed June 3, 2003.

  21. Moyer CA, Stern DT, Katz SJ, Fendrick AM. “We got mail”: electronic communication between physicians and patients. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5:1513–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. American Medical Association. Guidelines for Physician-Patient Electronic Communications. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2386.html. Accessed April 4, 2003.

  23. Cole J. Surveying the Digital Future—Year Three: UCLA Center for Communication Policy. Los Angeles, Calif: The UCLA Internet Report; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Madden M. America’s Online Pursuits, the Changing Picture of Who’s Online and What They Do. Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2003. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org. Accessed June 11, 2003.

  25. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Public Law No. 104–191. Section 1173, USC 201.

  26. National Research Council. Committee on Maintaining Privacy and Security in Health Care Applications of the National Information Infrastructure. For the Record: Protecting Electronic Health Information. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Horrigan JB. Broadband adoption at home: a Pew internet project data memo. May 18, 2003. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/toc. Accessed June 11, 2003.

  28. White CB, Moyer CA, Stern DT, Katz SJ. A content analysis of e-mail communication between patients and their providers: patients get the message. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11:260–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kane B, Sands DZ. Guidelines for the clinical use of electronic mail with patients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 5:104–11. Available at: http://jamia.org/cgi/reprint/5/1/104. Accessed June 3, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Maguire P. How one group gives a new meaning to “virtual” access. ACP Observer. April 2003. Available at: http://www.acponline.org/journals/news/apr03/virt_access.htm. Accessed April 8, 2003.

  31. Hundley K. Doctors offering “concierge” care. St. Petersburg Times Online. July 28, 2001. Available at: http://www.sptimes.com/News/072801/Business/Doctors_offering_con.shtml. Accessed May 7, 2003.

  32. Haeg A. Top-shelf health care—if you have the money. Minnesota Public Radio. June 24, 2002. Available at: http://www.news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200206/24_haega_conciergecare/. Accessed May 7, 2003.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departments of Medicine and Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, 300 N. Ingalls, Suite 7E12, Box 0429, 48109-0429, Ann Arbor, MI

    Steven J. Katz MD, MPH

  2. Veterans Affairs Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich

    Steven J. Katz MD, MPH

  3. Department of Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich

    Steven J. Katz MD, MPH

  4. Global REACH (Research, Education, and Collaboration in Health), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich

    Cheryl A. Moyer MPH

Authors
  1. Steven J. Katz MD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cheryl A. Moyer MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Katz MD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Katz, S.J., Moyer, C.A. The emerging role of online communication between patients and their providers. J GEN INTERN MED 19, 978–983 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30432.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.30432.x

Key words

Search

Navigation