The Views and Experiences of Clinicians Sharing Medical Record Notes With Patients

Quality of Care and Quality of Life: Balancing Patient Safety and Physician Burnout

Since the publication of the Institute of Medicine's landmark report on medical errors in 2000, a large number of safety programs have been implemented in American hospitals. Concurrently, there has been a dramatic increase in the rate of burnout among physicians. Although there are many unrelated causes of burnout (eg, loss of autonomy), and multiple safety programs that are applauded by physicians (eg, The Safe Motherhood Initiative), other programs created in the name of safety improvements may be contributing to physician distress. In this piece, we review several of those programs, describe their limitations and costs to physician well-being, and discuss the manner in which they might be modified to retain their benefits while mitigating the burdens they place on physicians.

Assessment and management patterns for chronic musculoskeletal pain in the family practice setting

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain affects 11% of the US population. Most patients who experience pain, particularly chronic musculoskeletal pain, seek care in primary care settings. Assessment of the patient pain experience is the cornerstone to optimal pain management; however, pain assessment remains a challenge for medical professionals. It is unknown to what extent the assessment of pain intensity is considered in context of function and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE

To understand common practices related to assessment of pain and function in patients with chronic musculoskeletal disorders.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

A 42-item electronic survey was developed with self-reported numeric ratings and responses related to knowledge, beliefs, and current practices. All physicians and non-physician clinicians affiliated with the AAFP NRN and 2000 AAFP physician members were invited to participate.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

Primary care clinicians report that chronic joint pain assessment should be comprehensive, citing assessment elements that align with the comprehensive pain assessment models. Pain intensity remains the primary focus of pain assessment in chronic joint pain and the most important factor in guiding treatment decisions, despite well-known limitations. Clinicians also report that patients with osteoarthritis should be treated by Family Medicine.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain assessment is primarily limited to pain intensity scales which may contribute to worse patient outcomes. Given that most respondents believe primary care/family medicine should be primary responsible for the care of patients with osteoarthritis, awareness of and comfort with existing guidelines, validated assessment instruments and the comprehensive pain assessment models could contribute to delivery of more comprehensive care.

Perspectives from neuro-oncology providers on patient access to electronic records: a survey study

Aim: To evaluate the neuro-oncology providers' experience with patient online access to electronic records. Methods: Cross-sectional survey for physicians and advanced care providers within the field of neuro-oncology in the USA. Results: 65 providers completed the survey, from all major regions of the USA. 58% reported that at least once per month, patients contacted them outside of an office visit about provider notes or a laboratory or imaging finding accessed online. 54% of providers did not think that all laboratory results should be released automatically, and only 25% of providers thought that all radiology reads should be released immediately. 97% thought that some patients suffered substantial distress viewing test results prior to appointments. Qualitative responses aligned with the quantitative results. Conclusion: Most neuro-oncology providers are concerned about the immediate release of laboratory and imaging findings to patients without guidance.

When Bad News Comes Through the Portal: Strengthening Trust and Guiding Patients When They Receive Bad Results Before Their Clinicians

Communication in oncology was challenging long before the emergence of the US 21st Century Cures Act. Before 2021, a growing body of evidence had demonstrated the benefits of patients' access to and review of the clinical notes in their charts (open notes); however, studies examining the benefits of immediate access to test results were scarce until the implementation of the Cures Act's Information Blocking Rule. Individuals grappling with cancer today now possess immediate access to their laboratory results, imaging scans, diagnostic tests, and progress notes as mandated by law. To many clinicians, the implementation of the Cures Act felt sudden and presented new challenges and concerns for oncologists surrounding patients' potential emotional reactions to medical notes or lack of control over the careful delivery of potentially life-changing information. Despite data that show most patients want immediate access to information in their records before it is communicated directly by a health care professional, surveys of oncologists showed trepidation. In this chapter, perspectives from a patient with cancer, an oncologist, and a cancer psychiatrist (in that order) are shared to illuminate the adjustments made in clinician-patient communication amid the era of nearly instantaneous results within the electronic health record.

Adolescents' reasons for accessing their health records online, perceived usefulness and experienced provider encouragement: a national survey in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Having online access to electronic health records (EHRs) may help patients become engaged in their care at an early age. However, little is known about adolescents using patient portals. A national survey conducted within the Nordic eHealth project NORDeHEALTH provided an important opportunity to advance our understanding of adolescent users of patient portals. The present study explored reasons for reading the EHRs, the perceived usefulness of information and functions in a patient portal and the association between frequency of use and encouragement to read the EHR.

METHODS

Data were collected in a survey using convenience sampling, available through the Swedish online health portal during 3 weeks in January and February 2022. This study included a subset of items and only respondents aged 15-19. Demographic factors and frequencies on Likert-style questions were reported with descriptive statistics, while Fisher's exact test was used to explore differences in use frequency based on having been encouraged to read by a healthcare professional (HCP).

RESULTS

Of 13 008 users who completed the survey, 218 (1.7%) were unique users aged 15-19 (females: 77.1%). One-fifth (47/218, 21.6%) had been encouraged by HCPs to read their records, and having been encouraged by HCPs was related to higher use frequency (p=0.018). All types of information were rated high on usefulness, while some functions were rated low, such as blocking specific clinical notes from HCPs and managing services for family members. The main reason for reading their health records online was out of curiosity.

CONCLUSIONS

Adolescents who read their records online perceive it to be useful. Encouragement by HCPs can lead to increased use of patient portals among adolescents. Findings should be considered in the future design of patient portals for adolescents.

Reasons for Acceptance or Rejection of Online Record Access Among Patients Affected by a Severe Mental Illness: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Over the past few years, online record access (ORA) has been established through secure patient portals in various countries, allowing patients to access their health data, including clinical notes ("open notes"). Previous research indicates that ORA in mental health, particularly among patients with severe mental illness (SMI), has been rarely offered. Little is known about the expectations and motivations of patients with SMI when reading what their clinicians share via ORA.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to explore the reasons why patients with SMI consider or reject ORA and whether sociodemographic characteristics may influence patient decisions.

METHODS

ORA was offered to randomly selected patients at 3 university outpatient clinics in Brandenburg, Germany, which exclusively treat patients with SMI. Within the framework of a mixed methods evaluation, qualitative interviews were conducted with patients who chose to participate in ORA and those who declined, aiming to explore the underlying reasons for their decisions. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients were examined using descriptive statistics to identify predictors of acceptance or rejection of ORA.

RESULTS

Out of 103 included patients, 58% (n=60) wished to read their clinical notes. The reasons varied, ranging from a desire to engage more actively in their treatment to critically monitoring it and using the accessible data for third-party purposes. Conversely, 42% (n=43) chose not to use ORA, voicing concerns about possibly harming the trustful relationship with their clinicians as well as potential personal distress or uncertainty arising from reading the notes. Practical barriers such as a lack of digital literacy or suspected difficult-to-understand medical language were also named as contributing factors. Correlation analysis revealed that the majority of patients with depressive disorder desired to read the clinical notes (P<.001), while individuals with psychotic disorders showed a higher tendency to decline ORA (P<.05). No significant group differences were observed for other patient groups or characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The adoption of ORA is influenced by a wide range of motivational factors, while patients also present a similar variety of reasons for declining its use. The results emphasize the urgent need for knowledge and patient education regarding factors that may hinder the decision to use ORA, including its practical usage, its application possibilities, and concerns related to data privacy. Further research is needed to explore approaches for adequately preparing individuals with SMI to transition from their inherent interest to active engagement with ORA.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00030188; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00030188.

Open AI meets open notes: surveillance capitalism, patient privacy and online record access

Patient online record access (ORA) is spreading worldwide, and in some countries, including Sweden, and the USA, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records. In the UK context, from 31 October 2023 as part of the new NHS England general practitioner (GP) contract it will be mandatory for GPs to offer ORA to patients aged 16 and older. Patients report many benefits from reading their clinical records including feeling more empowered, better understanding and remembering their treatment plan, and greater awareness about medications including possible adverse effects. However, a variety of indirect evidence suggests these benefits are unlikely to accrue without supplementation from internet-based resources. Using such routes to augment interpretation of the data and notes housed in electronic health records, however, comes with trade-offs in terms of exposing sensitive patient information to internet corporations. Furthermore, increased work burdens on clinicians, including the unique demands of ORA, combined with the easy availability and capability of a new generation of large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots, create a perfect collision course for exposing sensitive patient information to private tech companies. This paper surveys how ORA intersects with internet associated privacy risks and offers a variety of multilevel suggestions for how these risks might be better mitigated.

Generative Language Models and Open Notes: Exploring the Promise and Limitations

Patients' online record access (ORA) is growing worldwide. In some countries, including the United States and Sweden, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records on the web including laboratory and test results, lists of prescribed medications, vaccinations, and even the very narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, commonly referred to as "open notes"). In the United States, patient's ORA is also available in a downloadable form for use with other apps. While survey studies have shown that some patients report many benefits from ORA, there remain challenges with implementation around writing clinical documentation that patients may now read. With ORA, the functionality of the record is evolving; it is no longer only an aide memoire for doctors but also a communication tool for patients. Studies suggest that clinicians are changing how they write documentation, inviting worries about accuracy and completeness. Other concerns include work burdens; while few objective studies have examined the impact of ORA on workload, some research suggests that clinicians are spending more time writing notes and answering queries related to patients' records. Aimed at addressing some of these concerns, clinician and patient education strategies have been proposed. In this viewpoint paper, we explore these approaches and suggest another longer-term strategy: the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to support clinicians in documenting narrative summaries that patients will find easier to understand. Applied to narrative clinical documentation, we suggest that such approaches may significantly help preserve the accuracy of notes, strengthen writing clarity and signals of empathy and patient-centered care, and serve as a buffer against documentation work burdens. However, we also consider the current risks associated with existing generative AI. We emphasize that for this innovation to play a key role in ORA, the cocreation of clinical notes will be imperative. We also caution that clinicians will need to be supported in how to work alongside generative AI to optimize its considerable potential.

Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland

Background

In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries.

Methods

We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions.

Results

Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches.

Conclusions

Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

Adolescent Access to Clinicians' Notes: Adolescent, Parent, and Clinician Perspectives

PURPOSE

In 2021, federal guidelines mandated that health-care organizations share clinicians' notes with patients to increase information transparency. While findings indicate advantages for adult patients, less is known about note-sharing from the viewpoint of adolescents. This study aims to identify adolescent, parent, and clinician perspectives on the anticipated benefits and concerns of giving adolescents access to clinicians' notes and strategies to support note-sharing in this population.

METHODS

We conducted six focus groups with adolescents, parents, and clinicians at a children's hospital from May to October 2021. A semistructured facilitator guide captured participant perspectives of note-sharing benefits, concerns, and strategies. Two researchers independently coded and analyzed transcript data using thematic analysis; a third researcher reconciled discrepancies.

RESULTS

38 stakeholders (17 adolescents, 10 parents, and 11 clinicians) described four benefits, three concerns, and four implementation strategies regarding adolescent note-sharing. Potential benefits included adolescents using notes to remember and reinforce the visit, gaining knowledge about their health, strengthening the adolescent-clinician relationship, and increasing agency in health care decisions. Concerns included notes leading to a breach in confidentiality, causing negative emotions, and becoming less useful for clinicians. Strategies included making note-sharing more secure, optimizing note layout and content, setting clear expectations, and having a portion of the note for clinician use only.

DISCUSSION

Stakeholders suggest multiple strategies to optimize the implementation of note-sharing to support adolescent patients, parents, and clinicians as hospitals work to comply with federal regulations. These strategies may reinforce the potential benefits and mitigate the challenges of sharing notes with adolescent patients.

Users' Experiences With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Mental and Somatic Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care.

METHODS

Using Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR.

RESULTS

Among 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P<.001) of mental health care respondents (976/2008, 48.61%) reported perceiving errors in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents (1893/7086, 26.71%). Mental health care respondents also reported significantly higher odds (P<.001) of identifying omissions (758/2008, 37.75%) and offensive comments (729/2008, 36.3%) in their EHR compared with the somatic health care group (1867/7086, 26.35% and 826/7086, 11.66%, respectively). Mental health care respondents in hospital inpatient settings were more likely to identify errors (398/588, 67.7%; P<.001) and omissions (251/588, 42.7%; P<.001) than those in outpatient care (errors: 422/837, 50.4% and omissions: 336/837, 40.1%; P<.001) and primary care (errors: 32/100, 32% and omissions: 29/100, 29%; P<.001). Hospital inpatients also reported feeling more offended (344/588, 58.5%; P<.001) by certain content in their EHR compared with respondents in primary (21/100, 21%) and outpatient care (287/837, 34.3%) settings. Our qualitative findings showed that both mental and somatic health care respondents identified the most serious errors in their EHR in terms of medical history, communication, diagnosis, and medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Most mental and somatic health care respondents showed a positive attitude toward PAEHRs. However, mental health care respondents, especially those with severe and chronic concerns, expressed a more critical attitude toward certain content in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents. A PAEHR can provide valuable information and foster trust, but it requires careful attention to the use of clinical terminology to ensure accurate, nonjudgmental documentation, especially for persons belonging to health care groups with unique sensitivities.

Open Notes Use in Psychiatry-The Need for Multilevel Efforts in Research and Practice

This Viewpoint highlights barriers to incorporating the use of open notes as a component of patient-centered psychiatric care.

The right not to know: Non-disclosure of primary genetic test results and genetic counselors' response

As part of clinical genetic counseling practice, patients may request that their primary genetic test results be disclosed to someone else, such as a relative or referring provider, or request that results be disclosed to no one (non-disclosure). In making these requests, patients employ the ethical principle of the "right not to know," which argues that autonomous individuals can choose not to know relevant health information. Although the right not to know has been well-studied in medicine in general, and in the return of genomic secondary findings, we are not aware of other studies that have explored the return of primary genetic test results when patients request non-disclosure or disclosure to another individual. This study aimed to describe common clinical scenarios in which these requests occur, how genetic counselors respond, and what ethical considerations they employ in their decision-making process. We recruited participants from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' (NSGC) "Student Research Surveys and Reminders" listserv and conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 genetic counselors in the United States who described genetic counseling cases where this occurred. Interviews were transcribed and coded inductively, and themes were identified. Case details varied, but in our study data the requests for non-disclosure were most commonly made by patients with poor, often oncologic, prognoses who requested their test results be disclosed to a family member instead of themselves. Genetic counselors considered similar factors in deciding how to respond to these requests: patient autonomy, medical actionability of results for the patient and family, the relationship between the patient and the person to whom results might be disclosed, and legal or practical concerns. Genetic counselors often made decisions on a case-by-case basis, depending on how relevant each of these factors were. This study adds to the growing body of literature regarding patients' "right not to know" and will hopefully provide guidance for genetic counselors who experience this situation in clinical practice.

Assessing the Assessment-Developing and Deploying a Novel Tool for Evaluating Clinical Notes' Diagnostic Assessment Quality

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory diagnostic errors are increasingly being recognized as an important quality and safety issue, and while measures of diagnostic quality have been sought, tools to evaluate diagnostic assessments in the medical record are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test a tool to measure diagnostic assessment note quality in primary care urgent encounters and identify common elements and areas for improvement in diagnostic assessment.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review of urgent care encounters at an urban academic setting.

PARTICIPANTS

Primary care physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

The Assessing the Assessment (ATA) instrument was evaluated for inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and findings from its application to EHR notes.

KEY RESULTS

ATA had reasonable performance characteristics (kappa 0.63, overall Cronbach's alpha 0.76). Variability in diagnostic assessment was seen in several domains. Two components of situational awareness tended to be well-documented ("Don't miss diagnoses" present in 84% of charts, red flag symptoms in 87%), while Psychosocial context was present only 18% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

The ATA tool is a promising framework for assessing and identifying areas for improvement in diagnostic assessments documented in clinical encounters.

The 21st Century Cures Act: Inpatient Clinician Perceptions of Changes to Information Sharing at an Academic Medical Center

Introduction To comply with the Information Blocking Rule in the 21st Century Cures Act, many hospitals began to release inpatient electronic health information such as clinical notes and results to patients immediately, starting in April 2021. We sought to understand the perceptions of hospital-based clinicians regarding the impact of these changes in information sharing on clinicians and patients. Materials and methods We developed and distributed an electronic survey to 122 inpatient attending physicians, resident physicians, and physician assistants within the internal medicine and family medicine departments at an academic medical center. The survey asked clinicians to rate their comfort with information-sharing protocols and describe their perceptions of the impact of immediate information sharing on their documentation habits and patient interactions following the implementation of the Cures Act. Results The survey response rate was 37.7% (46/122). Of the respondents, 56.5% felt comfortable with the note-sharing process, 84.8% reported omitting specific information from their notes to prevent patients from reading it, and 39.1% of clinicians agreed that patients have found clinical notes "more confusing than helpful." Conclusions Immediate sharing of electronic health information has the potential to be a powerful tool for communicating with hospitalized patients. However, our results show many hospital-based clinicians report limited comfort with the note-sharing process and perceive it to be confusing to patients. Efforts are needed to educate clinicians regarding information sharing, understand patient and family perspectives, and develop best practices to enhance communication through electronic notes.

Impact of the Immediate Release of Clinical Information Rules on Health Care Delivery to Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates the immediate release of clinical information (IRCI) to patients. Immediate sharing of sensitive test results to patients with cancer might have serious unintended consequences for patients and providers.

METHODS

A 22-question REDCap survey was designed by the Association of American Cancer Institutes Physician Clinical Leadership Initiative Steering Committee to explore oncology providers' opinions on IRCI policy implementation. It was administered twice in 2021 with a 3-month interval. A third survey with a single question seeking providers' opinions about their adaptation to the IRCI mandate was administered 1 year later to those who had responded to the earlier surveys. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics such as chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables. The survey was sent to all Association of American Cancer Institutes cancer center members. In the first or second administration, 167 practitioners answered the survey; 31 responded to the third survey.

RESULTS

Three quarters of the providers did not favor the new requirement for IRCI and 62% encountered questions from patients about results being sent to them without provider interpretation. Only half of the hospitals had a plan in place to deal with the new IRCI requirements. A third survey, for longitudinal follow-up, indicated a more favorable trend toward adoption of IRCI.

CONCLUSION

IRCI for patients with cancer was perceived negatively by academic oncology providers after its implementation. It was viewed to be associated with higher levels of patient anxiety and complaints about the care delivered. Providers preferred to discuss test results with patients before release.

Patient Perspectives on Clinic Note Transparency Within Dermatology

This survey study assesses dermatology patient experiences with viewing online medical records and seeks to identify areas for improvement.

Understanding the Cures Act Information Blocking Rule in cancer care: a mixed methods exploration of patient and clinician perspectives and recommendations for policy makers

BACKGROUND

The 21^st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule was created to increase patient access to health information. This federally mandated policy has been met with praise and concern. However, little is known about patient and clinician opinions of this policy within cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a convergent parallel mixed methods study to understand patient and clinician reactions to the Information Blocking Rule in cancer care and what they would like policy makers to consider. Twenty-nine patients and 29 clinicians completed interviews and surveys. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews. Interview and survey data were analyzed separately, then linked to generate a full interpretation of the results.

RESULTS

Overall, patients felt more positive about the policy than clinicians. Patients wanted policy makers to understand that patients are unique, and they want to individualize their preferences for receiving health information with their clinicians. Clinicians highlighted the uniqueness of cancer care, due to the highly sensitive information that is shared. Both patients and clinicians were concerned about the impact on clinician workload and stress. Both expressed an urgent need for tailoring implementation of the policy to avoid unintended harm and distress for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide suggestions for optimizing the implementation of this policy in cancer care. Dissemination strategies to better inform the public about the policy and improve clinician understanding and support are recommended. Patients who have serious illness or diagnoses such as cancer and their clinicians should be included when developing and enacting policies that could have a significant impact on their well-being. Patients with cancer and their cancer care teams want the ability to tailor information release based on individual preferences and goals. Understanding how to tailor implementation of the Information Blocking Rule is essential for retaining its benefits and minimizing unintended harm for patients with cancer.

Perspectives of Patients About Immediate Access to Test Results Through an Online Patient Portal

Importance

The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule mandates the immediate electronic availability of test results to patients, likely empowering them to better manage their health. Concerns remain about unintended effects of releasing abnormal test results to patients.

Objective

To assess patient and caregiver attitudes and preferences related to receiving immediately released test results through an online patient portal.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This large, multisite survey study was conducted at 4 geographically distributed academic medical centers in the US using an instrument adapted from validated surveys. The survey was delivered in May 2022 to adult patients and care partners who had accessed test results via an online patient portal account between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022.

Exposures

Access to test results via a patient portal between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Responses to questions related to demographics, test type and result, reaction to result, notification experience and future preferences, and effect on health and well-being were aggregated. To evaluate characteristics associated with patient worry, logistic regression and pooled random-effects models were used to assess level of worry as a function of whether test results were perceived by patients as normal or not normal and whether patients were precounseled.

Results

Of 43 380 surveys delivered, there were 8139 respondents (18.8%). Most respondents were female (5129 [63.0%]) and spoke English as their primary language (7690 [94.5%]). The median age was 64 years (IQR, 50-72 years). Most respondents (7520 of 7859 [95.7%]), including 2337 of 2453 individuals (95.3%) who received nonnormal results, preferred to immediately receive test results through the portal. Few respondents (411 of 5473 [7.5%]) reported that reviewing results before they were contacted by a health care practitioner increased worry, though increased worry was more common among respondents who received abnormal results (403 of 2442 [16.5%]) than those whose results were normal (294 of 5918 [5.0%]). The result of the pooled model for worry as a function of test result normality was statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.71; 99% CI, 1.96-3.74), suggesting an association between worry and nonnormal results. The result of the pooled model evaluating the association between worry and precounseling was not significant (OR, 0.70; 99% CI, 0.31-1.59).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this multisite survey study of patient attitudes and preferences toward receiving immediately released test results via a patient portal, most respondents preferred to receive test results via the patient portal despite viewing results prior to discussion with a health care professional. This preference persisted among patients with nonnormal results.

Attitudes and Experiences of Clinicians After Mandated Implementation of Open Notes by the 21st Century Cures Act: Survey Study

BACKGROUND

On December 13, 2016, the US Congress enacted the 21st Century Cures Act (hereafter the Cures Act), which contained the Final Rule mandate that took effect on April 5, 2021. Since then, health systems have been required to provide patients digital access to their eHealth information "without delay" and without charge.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess clinicians' initial experiences with, and attitudes toward, sharing visit notes with patients after being mandated to do so by the Cures Act and to determine clinician preferences regarding instant record release.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted between June 10, 2021, and August 15, 2021, at the University of Kansas Health System, a large academic medical center in Kansas City, Kansas, United States. Participants included clinicians currently employed by the health system, including resident and attending physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and critical care and emergency medicine registered nurses.

RESULTS

A total of 1574 attending physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners, as well as 506 critical care and emergency medicine nurses, were sent invitations; 538 (34.18%) and 72 (14.2%), respectively, responded. Of 609 resident physicians, 4 (response rate not applicable because it was unknown how many residents viewed the website while the link was available) responded. The majority of respondents were attending physicians (402/614, 65.5%) and within the department of internal medicine (160/614, 26.1%). Most agreed that sharing visit notes was a good idea (355/613, 57.9%) and that it is important to speak with the patients before they accessed their records (431/613, 70.3%). Those who agreed that sharing visit notes is a good idea tended to view the practice as a useful tool for engaging patients ("Agree": 139/355, 39.2%; "Somewhat agree": 161/355, 45.4%; P<.001) and experience no change in the clinical value of their notes for other clinicians (326/355, 91.8%; P<.001). Those who disagreed (or were neutral) tended not to encourage patients to read their notes (235/258, 91.1%; P<.001) and were more likely to experience a change in their charting practice (168/257, 65.4%; P<.001) and increased time charting (99/258, 38.4%; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study may be generalizable to institutions similar to the University of Kansas Health System, and the clinician testimonies gathered in this study may provide valuable insight into the initial opinions and experiences of clinicians at these institutions. In addition, these clinician experiences collected early in the transition period may be used to guide future health policy implementation and to understand how best to prepare clinicians for these changes in practice.

Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care: Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners' Views

BACKGROUND

In 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").

METHODS

In March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.

It's time to change our documentation philosophy: writing better neurology notes without the burnout

Succinct clinical documentation is vital to effective twenty-first-century healthcare. Recent changes in outpatient and inpatient evaluation and management (E/M) guidelines have allowed neurology practices to make changes that reduce the documentation burden and enhance clinical note usability. Despite favorable changes in E/M guidelines, some neurology practices have not moved quickly to change their documentation philosophy. We argue in favor of changes in the design, structure, and implementation of clinical notes that make them shorter yet still information-rich. A move from physician-centric to team documentation can reduce work for physicians. Changing the documentation philosophy from "bigger is better" to "short but sweet" can reduce the documentation burden, streamline the writing and reading of clinical notes, and enhance their utility for medical decision-making, patient education, medical education, and clinical research. We believe that these changes can favorably affect physician well-being without adversely affecting reimbursement.

Digital Tools Designed to Obtain the History of Present Illness From Patients: Scoping Review

Background

Many medical conditions, perhaps 80% of them, can be diagnosed by taking a thorough history of present illness (HPI). However, in the clinical setting, situational factors such as interruptions and time pressure may cause interactions with patients to be brief and fragmented. One solution for improving clinicians’ ability to collect a thorough HPI and maximize efficiency and quality of care could be to use a digital tool to obtain the HPI before face-to-face evaluation by a clinician.

Objective

Our objective was to identify and characterize digital tools that have been designed to obtain the HPI directly from patients or caregivers and present this information to clinicians before a face-to-face encounter. We also sought to describe outcomes reported in testing of these tools, especially those related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review using predefined search terms in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevance, performed full-text reviews of articles meeting the inclusion criteria, and used a pile-sorting procedure to identify distinguishing characteristics of the tools. Information describing the tools was primarily obtained from identified peer-reviewed sources; in addition, supplementary information was obtained from tool websites and through direct communications with tool creators.

Results

We identified 18 tools meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these 18 tools, 14 (78%) used primarily closed-ended and multiple-choice questions, 1 (6%) used free-text input, and 3 (17%) used conversational (chatbot) style. More than half (10/18, 56%) of the tools were tailored to specific patient subpopulations; the remaining (8/18, 44%) tools did not specify a target subpopulation. Of the 18 tools, 7 (39%) included multilingual support, and 12 (67%) had the capability to transfer data directly into the electronic health record. Studies of the tools reported on various outcome measures related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care.

Conclusions

The HPI tools we identified (N=18) varied greatly in their purpose and functionality. There was no consensus on how patient-generated information should be collected or presented to clinicians. Existing tools have undergone inconsistent levels of testing, with a wide variety of different outcome measures used in evaluation, including some related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care. There is substantial interest in using digital tools to obtain the HPI from patients, but the outcomes measured have been inconsistent. Future research should focus on whether using HPI tools can lead to improved patient experience and health outcomes, although surrogate end points could instead be used so long as patient safety is monitored.

Trends in ICD-10-CM-Coded Administrative Datasets for Injury Surveillance and Research

Injury surveillance relies heavily on data created for administrative purposes. In the United States, the adoption of the clinical modification of the 10th edition of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification added thousands of potential injury codes, but few are used in administrative datasets. The widespread use of electronic health records has the potential to influence the data sources used for injury surveillance. This investigation explores how trends in clinical coding may affect the consistency of injury surveillance data.

Objectives

Accurate injury surveillance depends on data quality in administrative datasets created for billing and reimbursement. Significant effort has been devoted to testing the ability of candidate injury case definitions to identify injury cases accurately in these datasets. We used interviews with experienced coders, informed by a review of the current literature, to identify three clinical coding trends that may affect the consistency of surveillance data: “clinical documentation improvement or clinical documentation integrity” (CDI), coding by treating clinicians, and certain electronic health record features.

Methods

An extensive literature review informed interviews with coding experts to identify potential issues in coding practice. To determine whether physician coding was associated with information loss, we analyzed data from two hospitals serving the same geographic area. One hospital had used physician coding of emergency department data for the past decade; the other used professional coders. We compared the proportion of emergency department records missing external cause of injury codes and assessed the variation for statistical significance.

Results

CDI audits review patient records to ensure that billing information includes every relevant International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code. This approach has increased payment rates awarded to Medicare Advantage plans because additional codes increase the patient acuity level and case mix index. The impact of CDI audits on injury data needs further investigation. The pilot analysis addressing information loss with physician coding found a higher level of external cause coding with clinician self-coding, possibly because of the coding software. Finally, widespread “copy and paste” in patient electronic health records has the potential to increase reported injuries.

Conclusions

Injury surveillance relies on billing and reimbursement records. Financial motivations may interfere with the consistency of surveillance findings and mislead injury epidemiologists. Further investigation is essential to ensure the integrity of surveillance findings.

SEE-diabetes, a patient-centered diabetes self-management education and support for older adults: Findings and information needs from providers' perspectives

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Diabetes self-management education and support (DSMES) can improve clinical and health outcomes of people with diabetes. However, DSMES has been underutilized because of many barriers. We aimed to develop a patient-centered educational aid, SEE-Diabetes (Support-Engage-Empower-Diabetes), that facilitates shared decision-making about DSMES between patient and provider during the follow-up visit. We investigated the information needs to inform the design of the SEE-Diabetes from the providers' perspective.

METHODS

We conducted an online survey (N = 42) and three focus groups (N = 13) involving providers who have experience managing diabetes in older patients. Survey collected demographics and assessed knowledge of DSMES. During the subsequent focus groups, participants evaluated the Assessment and Plan section of three clinic notes of older people with diabetes. We also demonstrated the potential workflow of DSMES documentation using SEE-Diabetes during clinical practice.

RESULTS

The survey showed 60% of providers were familiar with DSMES. Focus group findings showed clinic notes should convey concise information at an appropriate reading level, numbered problems, and less medical jargon to improve the readability of clinic notes. Application of SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound) goals was suggested to deliver effective diabetes self-care information.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers should consider adopting validated DSMES guidelines along with goal-setting strategies to provide patient-centered care. The research team will integrate the provider recommendations when we develop SEE-Diabetes.

Open notes in patient care: confining deceptive placebos to the past?

Increasing numbers of health organisations are offering some or all of their patients access to the visit notes housed in their electronic health records (so-called 'open notes'). In some countries, including Sweden and the USA, this innovation is advanced with patients using online portals to access their clinical records including the visit summaries written by clinicians. In many countries, patients can legally request copies of their records; however, open notes are different because this innovation offers patients rapid, real-time access via electronic devices. In this brief report, we explore what open notes might mean for placebo use in clinical care. Survey research into patient access to their clinical notes shows that increased transparency enhances patients' understanding about their medications and augments engagement with their care. We reflect on the consequences of access for placebo prescribing, particularly for the common practice of deceptive placebo use, in which patients are not aware they are being offered a placebo. In addition, we explore how open notes might facilitate placebo and nocebo effects among patients. Bridging placebo studies with medical ethics, we identify a range of empirical research gaps that now warrant further study.

How to Reduce Stigma and Bias in Clinical Communication: a Narrative Review

A growing body of literature demonstrates that healthcare providers use stigmatizing language when speaking and writing about patients. In April 2021, the 21st Century Cures Act compelled clinicians to make medical records open to patients. We believe that this is a unique moment to provide clinicians with guidance on how to avoid stigma and bias in our language as part of larger efforts to promote health equity. We performed an exhaustive scoping review of the gray and academic literature on stigmatizing medical language. We used thematic analysis and concept mapping to organize the findings into core principles for use in clinical practice. We compiled a list of terms to avoid and seven strategies to promote non-judgmental health record keeping: (1) use person-first language, (2) eliminate pejorative terms, (3) make communication inclusive, (4) avoid labels, (5) stop weaponizing quotes, (6) avoid blaming patients, and (7) abandon the practice of leading with social identifiers. While we offer guidance clinicians can use to promote equity through language on an individual level, health inequities are structural and demand simultaneous systems and policy change. By improving our language, we can disrupt the harmful narratives that allow health disparities to persist.

Impact on patient-provider relationship and documentation practices when mental health patients access their electronic health records online: a qualitative study among health professionals in an outpatient setting

BACKGROUND

Patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHR) hold the potential to increase patient empowerment, especially for patients with complex, long-term or chronic conditions. However, evidence of its benefits for patients who undergo mental health treatment is unclear and inconsistent, and several concerns towards use of PAEHR emerged among health professionals. This study aimed at exploring the impact of PAEHR among mental health professionals in terms of patient-provider relationship, changes in the way of writing in the electronic health records and reasons for denying access to information.

METHODS

In-depth qualitative interviews with health professionals working in two mental health outpatient clinics at Helgelandssykehuset in Northern Norway, one of the first hospitals in Norway to implement the PAEHR in 2015. The interviews were conducted by phone or videoconferencing, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed by a multidisciplinary research team using the Framework Method.

RESULTS

A total of 16 in-depth qualitative interviews were conducted in April and May 2020. The PAEHR implemented in Norway was seen as a tool to increase transparency and improve the patient-provider relationship. The PAEHR was seen to have negative consequences only in limited situations, such as for patients with severe mental conditions, for child protective services when parents access their children's journal, or for patients with abusive partners. The functionality to deny access to the journal was used rarely. A more common practice for making information not immediately available was to delay the final approval of the notes. The documentation practices changed over the years, but it was not clear to what extent the changes were attributable to the introduction of the PAEHR. Health professionals write their notes keeping in mind that patients might read them, and they try to avoid unclear language, information about third parties, and hypotheses that might create confusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The concerns voiced by mental health professionals regarding the impact of the PAEHR on the patient-provider relationship and practices to deny access to information were not supported by the results of this study. Future research should explore changes in documentation practices by analysing the content of the electronic health records.

Assessing the impact of patient access to clinical notes on clinician EHR documentation

Recent policy changes have required health care delivery organizations provide patients electronic access to their clinical notes free of charge. There is concern that this could have an unintended consequence of increased electronic health record (EHR) work as clinicians may feel the need to adapt their documentation practices in light of their notes being accessible to patients, potentially exacerbating EHR-induced clinician burnout. Using a national, longitudinal data set consisting of all ambulatory care physicians and advance practice providers using an Epic Systems EHR, we used an interrupted time-series analysis to evaluate the immediate impact of the policy change on clinician note length and time spent documenting in the EHR. We found no evidence of a change in note length or time spent writing notes following the implementation of the policy, suggesting patient access to clinical notes did not increase documentation workload for clinicians.

Implications of Physical Access Barriers for Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment in Women with Mobility Disability

OBJECTIVE

More than 30 years since enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act, people with disability continue to face physical access barriers, notably inaccessible medical diagnostic equipment, in clinical settings. Access barriers affect breast cancer screening and treatment for women with disability.

METHODS

We used standard diagnosis codes and natural language processing to screen electronic health records (EHRs) in a digital data repository from a large healthcare delivery system for patients with pre-existing mobility disability diagnosed with breast cancer between 2005-2017. We reviewed EHRs of 20 patients, using conventional content analysis to examine breast cancer diagnosis and treatment experiences.

RESULTS

Clinicians noted challenges positioning patients for routine procedures including manual breast exam, screening mammography, and breast biopsies. Given challenges accommodating disability for adjuvant therapies, mastectomy was favored over breast-conserving options despite early stages of diagnosis. Notations contained little information about proactive problem-solving for arranging accommodations.

CONCLUSIONS

Notations described physical access barriers for breast cancer detection and treatment, with limited planning for mitigating barriers. Despite 2017 promulgation of federal Standards for Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment, implementing these standards requires further rulemaking.

Factors Associated with Reducing Disparities in Electronic Personal Heath Records Use Among Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic Adults

OBJECTIVES

Personal health records (PHR) use has improved individuals' health outcomes. The adoption of PHR remains low with documented racial disparities. We aim to determine factors associated with reducing racial and ethnic disparities among Hispanic adults in PHR use.

METHODS

Participants included non-Hispanic White (NHW) and Hispanic adults (age ≥ 18 years) enrolled in Health Information National Trends Survey in 2018 and 2019. We identified PHR use as online medical record access in the last 12 months. We considered three factors (1. accessing mHealth Apps on the phone, 2. having a usual source of care, and 3. electronically communicating (e-communication) with healthcare providers) as facilitating PHR use. Multivariable logistic regressions with replicate weights were analyzed to determine factors associated with racial/ethnic disparities in PHR use after controlling for general characteristics (i.e., sex, age, education, insurance status, and income).

RESULTS

A lower percentage of Hispanics than NHWs used PHR (42.0% vs. 53.5%, P < .001). When adjusted for individual general characteristics, the adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of e-communication with healthcare providers associated with PHR use was 1.49 (1.19-1.86, P < .001), AOR was 2.06 (1.62-2.6, P < .001) on accessing to mHealth App, and 2.60 (1.86-3.63, P < .001) on having a usual source of care. However, the racial difference was not statistically significant after adjusting three factors promoting PHR use (AOR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.66, 1.22, P = .48).

CONCLUSIONS

Ethnic disparities were reduced when PHR use was facilitated by having a usual source of care, active e-communication, and having access to mHealth apps. Interventions focusing on these three factors may potentially reduce racial/ethnic disparities.

Thai oncology nurses' perspectives toward survivorship care plan components and implementation for colorectal cancer survivors

PURPOSE

To describe oncology nurses' perspectives regarding survivorship care plan (SCP) components and implementation for colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Thailand.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, descriptive online study was conducted between October and November 2020. Thai oncology nurses were recruited using Facebook and the Line application. Study participants (n = 160) rated the usefulness of four standard SCP components (treatment summaries, surveillance, late/long-term effects, and health promotion and psychosocial needs; n = 23 items) and gave input on the implementation of SCPs in clinical practice (n = 11 items). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Most oncology nurses supported providing CRC survivors with SCPs (93.2%) and felt that SCPs were an important part of their practice (93.7%). Nurses rated all four SCP components as "very useful," including treatment summaries (76.4%), surveillance (81.9%), late/long-term effects (85.7%), and health behavior and psychosocial concerns (80.2%). In terms of implementation, most nurses indicated that oncologists should prepare (84.4%) and provide SCPs (95%), but 61.9% and 69.4% of nurses, respectively, also believed that they should perform these tasks. In addition, most nurses indicated that they should play a significant role in the ongoing management of CRC survivors (95.7%) and that evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed (96.2%).

CONCLUSION

Oncology nurses believed that the four SCP components were helpful to the long-term management of CRC survivors, supported SCP provision, and expressed their perceived responsibilities for preparing and delivering SCPs. The findings suggested opportunities for oncology nurses to play a significant role in developing and implementing SCPs. However, additional efforts are needed to expand nurses' roles in survivorship care and establish practice guidelines that will facilitate integration of SCPs into nursing practice.

Analysis of patient preferences on patient-provider interactions through the OpenNotes online portal in dermatology

Background: Many medical centers are beginning to use OpenNotes (ON) to empower patients. However, there is a lack of literature reviewing the ON system in dermatology and any differences in attitudes between men and women. If so, it is uncertain what concerns are more important to female patients. Given the complex lexicon of notes in dermatology, the outpatient setting of dermatology practices, and the often-complex nature of treatment regimens, investigation was merited.

Objective: This paper aimed to evaluate a survey of dermatologic patients on their attitudes toward the ON system.

Methods: From July through October 2015, 333 dermatologic patients at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center completed an anonymous, voluntary, 25-question survey of the ON system while in the waiting room. Approximately 60% of respondents were female and 40% were male. Respondents were older, with 27% age >65 years, 21% between 56 and 65 years, 16% between 46 and 55 years, 17% between 36 and 45 years, 14% between 26 and 35 years, and 4% between 18 and 25 years. Eighty-five percent of respondents were white, and 73% had, at minimum, graduated from college.

Results: Patient response to ON was positive, with 93% agreeing ON is a good idea. Of the patients who accessed their own notes (69% of respondents), 99.6% desired continued access. In addition, 85.6% of patients felt ON allowed them to control their own health, and 70% reported increased confidence in their dermatologist. Nineteen percent of respondents thought ON presented a privacy concern.

Conclusion: The results showed that female patients strongly desire access to their medical records, but concerns about privacy and security exist. Preliminary analysis by a statistician did not find any statistically significant variations between men and women within the results of the survey. Due to the wide agreement in responses, it is unlikely that there are significant differences in opinion on ON between men and women.

Examination of Stigmatizing Language in the Electronic Health Record

IMPORTANCE

Stigmatizing language in the electronic health record (EHR) may alter treatment plans, transmit biases between clinicians, and alienate patients. However, neither the frequency of stigmatizing language in hospital notes, nor whether clinicians disproportionately use it in describing patients in particular demographic subgroups are known.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the prevalence of stigmatizing language in hospital admission notes and the patient and clinician characteristics associated with the use of such language.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study of admission notes used natural language processing on 48 651 admission notes written about 29 783 unique patients by 1932 clinicians at a large, urban academic medical center between January to December 2018. The admission notes included 8738 notes about 4309 patients with diabetes written by 1204 clinicians; 6197 notes about 3058 patients with substance use disorder by 1132 clinicians; and 5176 notes about 2331 patients with chronic pain by 1056 clinicians. Statistical analyses were performed between May and September 2021.

EXPOSURES

Patients' demographic characteristics (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and preferred language); clinicians' characteristics (gender, postgraduate year [PGY], and credential [physician vs advanced practice clinician]).

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Binary indicator for any vs no stigmatizing language; frequencies of specific stigmatizing words. Linear probability models were the main measure, and logistic regression and odds ratios were used for sensitivity analyses and further exploration.

RESULTS

The sample included notes on 29 783 patients with a mean (SD) age of 46.9 (27.6) years. Of these patients, 1033 (3.5%) were non-Hispanic Asian, 2498 (8.4%) were non-Hispanic Black, 18 956 (63.6%) were non-Hispanic White, 17 334 (58.2%) were female, and 2939 (9.9%) preferred a language other than English. Of all admission notes, 1197 (2.5%) contained stigmatizing language. The diagnosis-specific stigmatizing language was present in 599 notes (6.9%) for patients with diabetes, 209 (3.4%) for patients with substance use disorders, and 37 (0.7%) for patients with chronic pain. In the whole sample, notes about non-Hispanic Black patients vs non-Hispanic White patients had a 0.67 (95% CI, 0.15 to 1.18) percentage points greater probability of containing stigmatizing language, with similar disparities in all 3 diagnosis-specific subgroups. Greater diabetes severity and the physician-author being less advanced in their training was associated with more stigmatizing language. A 1 point increase in the diabetes severity index was associated with a 1.23 (95% CI, .23 to 2.23) percentage point greater probability of a note containing stigmatizing language. In the sample restricted to physicians, a higher PGY was associated with less use of stigmatizing language overall (-0.05 percentage points/PGY [95% CI, -0.09 to -0.01]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, stigmatizing language in hospital notes varied by medical condition and was more often used to describe non-Hispanic Black patients. Training clinicians to minimize stigmatizing language in the EHR might improve patient-clinician relationships and reduce the transmission of bias between clinicians.

Sharing Clinical Notes and Electronic Health Records With People Affected by Mental Health Conditions: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly implemented internationally, whereas digital sharing of EHRs with service users (SUs) is a relatively new practice. Studies of patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs)-often referred to as open notes-have revealed promising results within general medicine settings. However, studies carried out in mental health care (MHC) settings highlight several ethical and practical challenges that require further exploration.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to map available evidence on PAEHRs in MHC. We seek to relate findings with research from other health contexts, to compare different stakeholders' perspectives, expectations, actual experiences with PAEHRs, and identify potential research gaps.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed using 6 electronic databases. Studies that focused on the digital sharing of clinical notes or EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions up to September 2021 were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews guided narrative synthesis and reporting of findings.

RESULTS

Of the 1034 papers screened, 31 were included in this review. The studies used mostly qualitative methods or surveys and were predominantly published after 2018 in the United States. PAEHRs were examined in outpatient (n=29) and inpatient settings (n=11), and a third of all research was conducted in Veterans Affairs Mental Health. Narrative synthesis allowed the integration of findings according to the different stakeholders. First, SUs reported mainly positive experiences with PAEHRs, such as increased trust in their clinician, health literacy, and empowerment. Negative experiences were related to inaccurate notes, disrespectful language use, or uncovering of undiscussed diagnoses. Second, for health care professionals, concerns outweigh the benefits of sharing EHRs, including an increased clinical burden owing to more documentation efforts and possible harm triggered by reading the notes. Third, care partners gained a better understanding of their family members' mental problems and were able to better support them when they had access to their EHR. Finally, policy stakeholders and experts addressed ethical challenges and recommended the development of guidelines and trainings to better prepare both clinicians and SUs on how to write and read notes.

CONCLUSIONS

PAEHRs in MHC may strengthen user involvement, patients' autonomy, and shift medical treatment to a coproduced process. Acceptance issues among health care professionals align with the findings from general health settings. However, the corpus of evidence on digital sharing of EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions is limited. Above all, further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and implementation of this sociotechnical intervention.

Patient and clinician perceptions of the immediate release of electronic health information

OBJECTIVES

The 21st Century Cures Act requires that institutions release all electronic health information (EHI) to patients immediately. We aimed to understand patient and clinician attitudes toward the immediate release of EHI to patients.

METHODS

Patients and clinicians representing distinct specialties at a single academic medical center completed a survey to assess attitudes toward the immediate release of results. Differences between patient and clinician responses were compared using chi-square and student's t-test for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A two-sided significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests.

RESULTS

69 clinicians and 57 patients completed the survey. Both patients (89.7%) and clinicians (80.6%) agreed or strongly agreed-here after referred to as agreed, that providing patients with access to their health information is necessary in delivering high-quality care. However, 62.7% of clinicians agreed that results released immediately would be more confusing than helpful, whereas the minority of patients agreed with this statement (15.8%) (p < 0.05). Providers were also more likely to disagree that patients are comfortable independently interpreting blood work results (p < 0.05), radiology results (p < 0.05) and pathology reports (p < 0.05). With regard to timing, the majority of patients (75.1%) felt their provider should contact them within 24 h of the release of an abnormal result, whereas only 9.0% of clinicians agreed with this timeframe (p < 0.05).

DISCUSSIONS

Patients and clinicians value information transparency. However, the immediate release of results is controversial, especially among clinicians. The discrepancy between patient and clinician perceptions underlines the importance of setting expectations about the communication of results. Additionally, our results emphasize the need to implement strategies to help improve patient comprehension, decrease patient distress and improve clinician workflows.