An important focus for meaningful use criteria is to engage patients in their care by allowing them online access to their health information, including test results. There has been little evaluation of such initiatives. Using a mixed methods analysis of electronic health record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews, we examined the impact of allowing patients to view their test results via patient portal in one large health system. Quantitative data were collected for new users and all users of the patient portal. Qualitative interviews occurred with patients who had received an HbA1c or abnormal Pap result. Survey participants were active patient portal users. Our main measures were patient portal usage, factors associated with viewing test results and utilizing care, and patient and provider experiences with patient portal and direct release. Usage data show 80% of all patient portal users viewed test results during the year. Of survey respondents, 82.7% noted test results to be a very useful feature and 70% agreed that patient portal has made their provider more accessible to them. Interviewed patients reported feeling they should have direct access to test results and identified the ability to monitor results over time and prepare prior to communicating with a provider as benefits. In interviews, both patients and physicians reported instances of test results leading to unnecessary patient anxiety. Both groups noted the benefits of results released with provider interpretation. Quantitative data showed patient utilization to increase with viewing test results online, but this effect is mitigated when results are manually released by physicians. Our findings demonstrate that patient portal access to test results was highly valued by patients and appeared to increase patient engagement. However, it may lead to patient anxiety and increase rates of patient visits. We discuss how such unintended consequences can be addressed and larger implications for meaningful use criteria.

The current evidence base is inadequate to inform providers and policymakers about the most effective strategies for managing or allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events. Consensus on methodological standards that encompass a range of study designs is needed to guide future research and strengthen the evidence base. Evidentiary standards should be developed to promote consensus interpretations of the evidence supporting individual strategies.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

In recent years, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) have become more frequent and deadly, while emergency department (ED) crowding has grown steadily worse and widespread. The ability of hospitals to implement an effective mass-casualty surge plan, immediately and expertly, has therefore never been more important. Yet, mass-casualty exercises tend to be highly choreographed, pre-scheduled events that provide limited insight into hospitals' true capacity to respond to a no-notice event under real-world conditions. To address this gap, the US Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC USA), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), sponsored development of a set of tools meant to allow any hospital to run a real-time, no-notice exercise, focusing on the first hour and 15 minutes of a hospital's response to a sudden MCI, with the goals of minimizing burden, maximizing realism, and providing meaningful, outcome-oriented metrics to facilitate self-assessment. The resulting exercise, which was iteratively developed, piloted at nine hospitals nationwide, and completed in 2015, is now freely available for anyone to use or adapt. This report demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a no-notice exercise in the hospital setting and describes insights gained during the development process that might be helpful to future exercise developers. It also introduces the use of ED "immediate bed availability (IBA)" as an objective, dynamic measure of an ED's physical capacity for new arrivals. Waxman DA , Chan EW , Pillemer F , Smith TWJ , Abir M , Nelson C . Assessing and improving hospital mass-casualty preparedness: a no-notice exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):662-666.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) are an important public health tool for responding to infectious disease outbreaks, including pandemics. However, little is known about the individual characteristics associated with support for NPIs, or whether they are consistent across regions. This study draws on survey data from four regions—Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and the United States—collected following the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak of 2002–03, and employs regression techniques to estimate predictors of NPI support. It finds that characteristics associated with NPI support vary widely by region, possibly because of cultural variation and prior experience, and that minority groups tend to be less supportive of NPIs when arrest is the consequence of noncompliance. Prior experience of face-mask usage also results in increased support for future usage, as well as other NPIs. Policymakers should be attentive to local preferences and to the application of compulsory interventions. It is speculated here that some public health interventions may serve as ‘gateway’ exposures to future public health interventions.