| When there is not a shared conception of PCC it is difficult to have a shared perspective on EHR functions |
Differences among clinicians are apparent in the definition of, value perceived, and behaviors that represent PCC Perceptions that EHR functions that allow personalization of care are valuable Variation in implied definition of concepts such as patient preferences Consistency clearer in well-defined concepts and actions
|
| The documentation of goals does not match the construct of goals and patient contextual data is valuable, but not systematically documented in the EHR |
Patient goals and contextual information is important to clinicians Perceptions that information about patients’ lives (partners, etc.) and personal goals are elicited by clinicians to support clinical care Perceptions that recording and accessing this information is challenging No mechanisms to track goals or define goal achievement (or change) limiting the support the EHR provides to this vital PCC function
|
| There is a collective challenge in representing the patient and the patient’s needs in an integrated way |
Integrated care plans are complex in real-world settings Perceptions that multi-stakeholders do not have mutual goals, and may have competing goals
|
| PGD is an emerging function in EHRs |
Technical representatives describe PGD functions as available, but clinician users did not report integrating this data into care Respondents commonly characterized PGD as device integration (fitbit) or a type of contextual data
|
