Survey Finds 78% of Patients Satisfied With Apple Health Records at UC San Diego Hospital

[MacRumors]

UC San Diego Health recently sent an online survey to its first 425 patients who activated Apple Health Records in 2018, and among 132 respondents, 78 percent indicated that they were "satisfied with using the feature."

96 percent of respondents said they could "easily connect their mobile devices to the platform," and 90 percent said the "smartphone solution improved their understanding of their own health, facilitated conversations with their clinicians, or improved sharing of personal health information with friends and family."

The survey results were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week by doctors at UC San Diego Health, one of the first hospitals and clinics to make Apple Health Records available to its patients.

Apple introduced the Health Records feature in iOS 11.3 in March 2018, allowing patients to view their medical records from multiple participating hospitals and clinics directly in the Health app on the iPhone, including allergies, vital signs, conditions, immunizations, lab results, medications, and procedures.

The journal submission cautions that, as with many new products and solutions, such enthusiasm is common from early adopters. The platform will need to "prove that it is useful, sustainable, scalable, and actually improves health outcomes," according to Christian Dameff, MD, UC San Diego Health.

As noted by CNBC's Christina Farr, hospitals have historically faced "major challenges" with getting patients to use electronic medical records because the technology "tends to be poorly designed and hard to use."

UC San Diego Health doctors believe three key developments may contribute to the success of Apple Health Records compared to earlier efforts like Google Health in 2008, including the ubiquity of mobile technology, the maturation of health data communications standards, and the widespread use of App Stores.

More than 100 institutions now support Apple Health Records in the United States, including Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles and Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, and Apple reportedly hopes to add the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a partner as well, a move that would provide veterans with access to the feature.

Health records are stored in the Health Data tab of the Health app on iOS 11.3 and later.

Article Link: Survey Finds 78% of Patients Satisfied With Apple Health Records at UC San Diego Hospital

 

[PsykX]

Below 90-95% of satisfaction will make it really hard to adopt in public hospitals IMO.
But we really, like really really have to use these technologies sooner than later, or the system will continue to crumble (in Quebec at least)

 

[OverSpun]

I only recently activated this feature but I think it works great. It is a lot more convenient than flipping through prints of medical labs.

 

[jimthing]

Get back to us when public institutions like the NHS here in the UK support it, where virtually every citizen has a record (all 65m of us).
Then it'll be worth patting themselves on the back. Not this.

 

[BaltimoreMediaBlog]

Let me know when Johns Hopkins chimes in. I'd trust them more than surveys or government data.

 

[Buran]

I'd gladly use this over Epic... which is better than what the local hospitals were using previously. Both medical groups I see as a patient use Epic now.

If Epic connects to Apple Health, that'd be a huge usability improvement. Sadly, medical records have a long way to go in the interoperability zone, since there's little incentive for providers to establish a standard for it.

 

[Scottsoapbox]

Kind of a meaningless number without a prior satisfaction level.

 

[ayaka19]

Not as high as I'd like it, but hopefully more and more doctors and hospitals integrates with this.

 

[WatchFromAfar]

Below 90-95% of satisfaction will make it really hard to adopt in public hospitals IMO.
But we really, like really really have to use these technologies sooner than later, or the system will continue to crumble (in Quebec at least)

Excately, more than 1 in 5 are unhappy with the service; it's poor

 

[citysnaps]

Get back to us when public institutions like the NHS here in the UK support it, where virtually every citizen has a record (all 65m of us).
Then it'll be worth patting themselves on the back. Not this.

I think I missed who patted themselves on the back.

 

[coolbreeze]

Yeah we’re gonna need a web portal for our Apple Health data. The Garmin portal is amazing.

I know Apple, Google, etc love locking people into upgrade (profit) treadmills, but platform lock shouldn’t be a thing for healthcare data.

 

[citysnaps]

Excately, more than 1 in 5 are unhappy with the service; it's poor

Not great. But not poor. It's an initial rollout. I'd be shocked if there weren't rough edges. User feedback will rapidly improve the system.

 

[koruki]

lol wow look at all the whining comments already, they need to make a start somewhere guys. Rome wasn't built in a day

 

[mariusignorello]

I'd gladly use this over Epic... which is better than what the local hospitals were using previously. Both medical groups I see as a patient use Epic now.

If Epic connects to Apple Health, that'd be a huge usability improvement. Sadly, medical records have a long way to go in the interoperability zone, since there's little incentive for providers to establish a standard for it.

Epic, Cerner, Allscripts and more of the major EHR vendors are on board with Apple Health.

 

[nfl46]

Not bad for a start. It will improve over time. That’s why feedback is important.

 

[macdaddy44]

This article reminded me that I needed to update my sources. Now I have all of my lab test results for the last several years available on my phone. Only two of my hospitals are in the system so I am sending emails to the others to ask why they are not in. Medical record systems are the most screwed up system out there as there is no uniformity so if this can be fixed by this system I am all on board.

 

[gavroche]

Does that number seem odd to anyone? Over 90% said it was easy to set up, and that it "improved their understanding of their own health".... yet only 78% were satisfied?

 

[Kaibelf]

Below 90-95% of satisfaction will make it really hard to adopt in public hospitals IMO.
But we really, like really really have to use these technologies sooner than later, or the system will continue to crumble (in Quebec at least)

What percentage of people are satisfied with the old paper and unanswered questions method?

 

[CarlJ]

Exactly, more than 1 in 5 are unhappy with the service; it's poor

78%. That's 103 out of 132 respondents satisfied (29 less than satisfied). A little under one-third of the people who were sent the survey responded. Not a terribly large sample size. Some of those 29 likely ran into one particular issue of some sort in this new system - maybe they didn't like the entire system, but just as likely there was just one thing that irked them. As well, people who don't like something are often more motivated to take the time to fill out such surveys. Pronouncing judgement of the whole system to be "poor" based on only this much data seems premature.

 

[Bacillus]

Kind of a meaningless number without a prior satisfaction level.

Excately, more than 1 in 5 are unhappy with the service; it's poor

Get back to us when public institutions like the NHS here in the UK support it, where virtually every citizen has a record (all 65m of us).
Then it'll be worth patting themselves on the back. Not this.

Does that number seem odd to anyone? Over 90% said it was easy to set up, and that it "improved their understanding of their own health".... yet only 78% were satisfied?

Indeed, the more interesting part is missing, i.e. what do the 22% see as shortcomings or improvement ? And how feasible is it to address their criticism ?
In this form, this potentially good news easily degrades itself into the usual Cookette success-story, framed at times of trouble (“People like better access to their records”, Geeh.)

 

[Sinfonist]

Does that number seem odd to anyone? Over 90% said it was easy to set up, and that it "improved their understanding of their own health".... yet only 78% were satisfied?

Perhaps it only has some of their medical records, their doctors or other medical staff were unable to access the information efficiently, it doesn't link with other medical information systems they are using, it doesn't link with medical devices they need to use, or they were unhappy with who they could share their information with (e.g. only with those of their family who are using ios devices). Apple should now have some good feedback on how to make improvements before this is rolled out more widely (only 425 patient records so far?). Even though it's early stage, I'm quite impressed that they've managed to make this much progress - there are a lot of technical, social and legal hurdles to overcome.

 

[rmoliv]

Should we expect to see this outside the US soon or is it another feature that will take as long to roll out as Apple Pay? Or the ECG feature.

From Apple's website: "Registration is available to U.S. healthcare institutions only."

Thank you Apple...

 

[armsakimbo]

I'd gladly use this over Epic... which is better than what the local hospitals were using previously. Both medical groups I see as a patient use Epic now.

If Epic connects to Apple Health, that'd be a huge usability improvement. Sadly, medical records have a long way to go in the interoperability zone, since there's little incentive for providers to establish a standard for it.

Epic does interface with apple health - it’s really up to the individual hospital system to connect to Apple. As a doctor and patient I find Epic (and the patient facing MyChart) passable - and I’m quickly finding it’s ubiquity is the best thing about it.

 

[Bacillus]

Epic does interface with apple health - it’s really up to the individual hospital system to connect to Apple. As a doctor and patient I find Epic (and the patient facing MyChart) passable - and I’m quickly finding it’s ubiquity is the best thing about it.

Then again - what should be improved ?

 

[gavroche]

Perhaps it only has some of their medical records, their doctors or other medical staff were unable to access the information efficiently, it doesn't link with other medical information systems they are using, it doesn't link with medical devices they need to use, or they were unhappy with who they could share their information with (e.g. only with those of their family who are using ios devices). Apple should now have some good feedback on how to make improvements before this is rolled out more widely (only 425 patient records so far?). Even though it's early stage, I'm quite impressed that they've managed to make this much progress - there are a lot of technical, social and legal hurdles to overcome.

Perhaps, yes. Although some of those things could potentially violate HIPAA laws.... which will need to be updated as new technology becomes available. Unfortunately none of my local hospitals... especially where my daughter has so many appointments... participates. So can't try it out myself.