Collection of Gender Identity Data Using Electronic Medical Records: Survey of Current End-user Practices
Year: 2014
Type: article
Abstract: Key words: electronic health records, MeSH terms: statistics and numerical data, transgender persons A transgender person may have a preferred name, preferred pronoun, and gender identity, any of which can differ from what is listed in their legal documentation.In addition to negatively impacting patient experiences (e.g., being called by a birth name rather than one's gender-congruent preferred name in a crowded waiting room), incomplete or inconsistent documentation of this information in an electronic medical record (EMR) can impact care (Kosenko, Rintamaki, Raney, & Maness, 2013;Melendez & Pinto, 2009).For example, a patient listed as male in the EMR may have a cervix and require related screening reminders and documentation of a physical examination (Deutsch et al., 2013;Melendez & Pinto, 2009;Mizock & Lewis, 2008; National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2011).Some EMR systems, as well as provider uses of such systems, fail outright to identify transgender patients; the resulting systematic erasure leads to reduced funding allocations as well as impaired quality improvement and research efforts (Bauer et al., 2009).Collecting gender identity data has received support from a multitude of entities and reports including the Institute of Medicine (National Research Council, 2013), Healthy People 2020 (U.S.Department of Health and Human Services, 2010), the Affordable Care Act (Center for American Progress, 2012), the Institute of Medicine (2011), and the Joint Commission (2011).Meaningful Use refers to incen-tive programs implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.These programs provide financial incentives for the meaningful use of certified electronic health record technology to improve patient care.The programs are staged in three steps with increasing requirements for participation (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, n.d.).Gender identity was not included in Meaningful Use Stage 2 as the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology felt there was insufficient evidence to support a best practice for doing so; Stage 3 is currently under review (Cahill & Makadon, 2014;Carroll, 2012).While inclusion in Meaningful Use guidelines will be an essential step toward more universal adaptation of this process, recommendations based on rigorous and validating research to guide such an inclusion are lacking.
Institution: University of California, San Francisco
Language: English
Subfield: Social Psychology
Field: Psychology
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W2091243525