Words Matter: What Do Patients Find Judgmental or Offensive in Outpatient Notes?

Security and Privacy of Online Record Access: A Survey of Adolescents' Views and Experiences in Sweden

PURPOSE

Ensuring security of online health records and patients' perceptions of security are concerns in adolescent healthcare. Little is known about adolescents' perceptions about healthcare's ability to protect online health records. This article explores adolescents' perspectives on security and privacy of their online health records, potential differences based on gender and health, attitudes to sharing information, and perceptions of what constitutes sensitive information.

METHODS

This study included a subset of items from a national online patient survey conducted in Sweden (January-February 2022), focusing on respondents aged 15-19 years. Gender and health status differences were calculated using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

Of 218 adolescent respondents (77.1% female), a minority had security and privacy concerns. A notable proportion (41.3%) wished to control who could see their records, and those who reported better perceived health were more likely to want to manage access to their electronic health record (H = 13.569, p = .009). Most had not experienced unauthorized access to their records (75.2%) and had never shared health information on other online applications (85.8%). More than half (56.0%) perceived some information as sensitive, where mental health was the most common (76.0%). Most felt that reading their notes improved their trust for their healthcare professional (65.6%) and supported better communication with healthcare professionals (66.5%).

DISCUSSION

In this national survey, adolescents generally reported few concerns about patient portals. Findings emphasize the need for security and privacy protection and to empower adolescents with greater control over access to their health information housed in electronic health record systems.

Clinician and Patient Perspectives on the Exchange of Sensitive Social Determinants of Health Information

Importance

Social determinant of health (SDOH) data are essential to individualized care and reducing health disparities. However, there is little standardization in the way that SDOH data are collected, and barriers to increasing the collection of such data exist at both the patient and clinician levels.

Objective

To evaluate clinician, patient, and care partner perspectives on the barriers to and facilitators of patients sharing SDOH information with their clinicians.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This qualitative study included clinicians, patients, and care partners across the United States. Focus groups were conducted between September 2022 and February 2023 to understand the experience of collecting, documenting, and exchanging SDOH data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Rapid assessment procedures were used to analyze focus group transcripts, creating summaries, codes, and themes mapped directly to the project research questions.

Results

A total of 235 individuals participated, including 109 (46.4%) clinicians (60 [55.0%] male; 25 [22.9%] Asian, 2 [1.8%] Black, and 74 [67.9%] White) and 126 (53.6%) patients and care partners (45 [35.7%] male; 1 [0.8%] Asian, 48 [38.1%] Black, and 64 [50.8%] White). Clinicians and patients agreed that SDOH data are important for clinicians to know. Both clinicians and patients wanted a structured, standardized way to collect SDOH data in the future, accompanied by time for more in-depth discussion during the visit. However, they highlighted numerous issues that impact collecting these data, including beliefs about how the information will be used, the clinician-patient relationship, having enough of the right staff, time needed to collect SDOH information, and technology used to collect the data (eg, usability, standardization).

Conclusions and Relevance

This qualitative study of the experience of collecting, documenting, and exchanging SDOH data underscores the ongoing barriers to widespread adoption of uniform approaches to SDOH data documentation as well as factors that may help lower those barriers, such as trusting patient-clinician relationships, greater transparency in how the data will be used, and targeted resources. A multifaceted approach to addressing the concerns raised by clinicians, patients, and care partners is required to ensure that such data can be captured in a way that improves care and allows for progress toward an equitable health care system.

Race and Ethnicity and Clinician Linguistic Expressions of Doubt in Hospital Admission Notes

Importance

Stigmatizing language in electronic health records (EHRs) can generate or reinforce negative stereotypes about patients from minoritized groups and erode their trust and experience. However, less is known about the use of such language to cast doubt on patient clinical history in hospital settings.

Objective

To compare the prevalence of language expressing doubt about patient clinical history (eg, experiences and symptoms) in hospital admission notes by patient race and ethnicity.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, natural language processing tools were applied to analyze 54 936 admission notes from 1249 clinicians about patients aged 18 years or older at admission and hospitalized at an academic health system in the Northeast US between January 1, 2018, and February 28, 2023. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2022, to July 31, 2023.

Exposure

Patient race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic White, and racial and ethnic minoritized groups excluding non-Hispanic Black [includes multiple racial and ethnic groups, such as Hispanic and Asian]) as recorded in the EHR based on self-report or registrar determination.

Main Outcome and Measure

Binary indicator for at least 1 term casting doubt on patient clinical history was defined using epistemic stance, a linguistic construct expressing a writer's degree of certainty in information. Terms were manually validated via iterative review of notes by the study team.

Results

Among 56 325 admission notes (mean [SD] age of patients, 55.9 [19.0] years; 30 913 notes among female patients [54.9%]; 25 649 notes among non-Hispanic Black patients [45.5%], 26 442 notes among non-Hispanic White patients [46.9%], and 2985 notes among members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups excluding non-Hispanic Black patients [5.3%]), we analyzed 54 936 admission notes that had no missing data. Among all analyzed admission notes, 39 023 notes (71.0%) contained doubt language. Notes written about non-Hispanic Black patients had increased odds of containing at least 1 word or phrase of doubt (adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14-1.28; P < .001) compared with notes among non-Hispanic White patients. Compared with notes among non-Hispanic White patients, notes written about members of racial and ethnic minoritized groups excluding non-Hispanic Black patients had similar odds of containing at least 1 term of doubt.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this study, language casting doubt on patient clinical history was more likely to be found in notes of non-Hispanic Black patients. These results suggest that with the implementation of policies allowing patients full access to their health records, examining clinical documentation standards may be associated with improved patient experience.

Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act enables patients to access their medical records, thus providing a unique opportunity to engage patients in their diagnostic journey.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the concordance between patients' self-reported diagnostic concerns and clinician-interpreted information in their electronic health records.

DESIGN

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of a cohort of 467 patients who completed a structured data collection instrument (the Safer Dx Patient) to identify diagnostic concerns while reviewing their clinician's notes. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses on both the tools and the case summaries. Two clinical chart reviewers, blinded to patient-reported diagnostic concerns, independently conducted chart reviews using a different structured instrument (the Revised Safer Dx Instrument) to identify diagnostic concerns and generate case summaries. The primary outcome variable was chart review-identified diagnostic concerns. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was concordant with patient-reported diagnostic concerns.

SETTING

Geisinger, a large integrated healthcare organization in rural and semi-urban Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Cohort of adult patients actively using patient portals and identified as "at-risk" for diagnostic concerns using an electronic trigger algorithm based on unexpected visit patterns in a primary care setting.

RESULTS

In 467 cohort patients, chart review identified 31 (6.4%) diagnostic concerns, of which only 11 (21.5%) overlapped with 51 patient-reported diagnostic concerns. Content analysis revealed several areas of discordant understanding of the diagnostic process between clinicians and patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that clinician-identified diagnostic concerns were associated with patients who self-reported "I feel I was incorrectly diagnosed during my visit" (odds ratio 1.65, 95% CI 1.17-2.3, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Patients and clinicians appear to have certain differences in their mental models of what is considered a diagnostic concern. Efforts to integrate patient perspectives and experiences with the diagnostic process can lead to better measurement of diagnostic safety.

Experiences from patients in mental healthcare accessing their electronic health records: results from a cross-national survey in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden

BACKGROUND

Patients' online record access (ORA) enables patients to read and use their health data through online digital solutions. One such solution, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) have been implemented in Estonia, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. While accumulated research has pointed to many potential benefits of ORA, its application in mental healthcare (MHC) continues to be contested. The present study aimed to describe MHC users' overall experiences with national PAEHR services.

METHODS

The study analysed the MHC-part of the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, a large-scale multi-country survey. The survey consisted of 45 questions, including demographic variables and questions related to users' experiences with ORA. We focused on the questions concerning positive experiences (benefits), negative experiences (errors, omissions, offence), and breaches of security and privacy. Participants were included in this analysis if they reported receiving mental healthcare within the past two years. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise data, and percentages were calculated on available data.

RESULTS

6,157 respondents were included. In line with previous research, almost half (45%) reported very positive experiences with ORA. A majority in each country also reported improved trust (at least 69%) and communication (at least 71%) with healthcare providers. One-third (29.5%) reported very negative experiences with ORA. In total, half of the respondents (47.9%) found errors and a third (35.5%) found omissions in their medical documentation. One-third (34.8%) of all respondents also reported being offended by the content. When errors or omissions were identified, about half (46.5%) reported that they took no action. There seems to be differences in how patients experience errors, omissions, and missing information between the countries. A small proportion reported instances where family or others demanded access to their records (3.1%), and about one in ten (10.7%) noted that unauthorised individuals had seen their health information.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, MHC patients reported more positive experiences than negative, but a large portion of respondents reported problems with the content of the PAEHR. Further research on best practice in implementation of ORA in MHC is therefore needed, to ensure that all patients may reap the benefits while limiting potential negative consequences.

Promoting diversity, equity and inclusion awareness in clinical documentation through postgraduate year one training

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

As healthcare providers increasingly focus on emerging issues of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in patient care, less is known about the training in postgraduate year one (PGY1) pharmacy residency on DEI clinical documentation considerations. This pilot project explored whether training, discussion and self-reflection within a peer review activity promoted DEI self-awareness in clinical documentation through a centralized curriculum of a multisite PGY1.

EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITY AND SETTING

Building upon an established peer review of clinical documentation activity, PGY1 pharmacy residents practicing in ambulatory care settings received training on DEI considerations and completed small and large group discussions, a post-activity mixed methods survey with self-reflection prompts, and a three-month follow-up survey.

FINDINGS

Twenty-two residents participated in the peer review of clinical documentation activity, DEI training and discussions. Twelve residents completed the post-activity survey with reflection prompts; 6 (50%) reported similar previous DEI training prior to residency. After the DEI training and discussions, 12 (100%) agreed or strongly agreed that their awareness of DEI documentation considerations increased; 10 (83%) would document their submitted notes differently, while one resident was unsure and one would not make changes. Twelve residents completed the follow-up survey three months following the activity. Themes from the free-text responses on key learnings collected post-activity and three-month post (respectively) included: 1) new knowledge, increased self-awareness, and intended action and 2) increased self-awareness and changes in note-making convention.

SUMMARY

Integrating DEI training, discussion, and self-reflection prompts into a peer review clinical documentation activity increased self-awareness and knowledge of DEI considerations and promoted intended changes in patient care documentation for pharmacy residents. Regardless of previous training, residents reported continued self-awareness and changes in documentation conventions continued three months later.

Identifying stigmatizing language in clinical documentation: A scoping review of emerging literature

BACKGROUND

Racism and implicit bias underlie disparities in health care access, treatment, and outcomes. An emerging area of study in examining health disparities is the use of stigmatizing language in the electronic health record (EHR).

OBJECTIVES

We sought to summarize the existing literature related to stigmatizing language documented in the EHR. To this end, we conducted a scoping review to identify, describe, and evaluate the current body of literature related to stigmatizing language and clinician notes.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Embase databases in May 2022, and also conducted a hand search of IEEE to identify studies investigating stigmatizing language in clinical documentation. We included all studies published through April 2022. The results for each search were uploaded into EndNote X9 software, de-duplicated using the Bramer method, and then exported to Covidence software for title and abstract screening.

RESULTS

Studies (N = 9) used cross-sectional (n = 3), qualitative (n = 3), mixed methods (n = 2), and retrospective cohort (n = 1) designs. Stigmatizing language was defined via content analysis of clinical documentation (n = 4), literature review (n = 2), interviews with clinicians (n = 3) and patients (n = 1), expert panel consultation, and task force guidelines (n = 1). Natural language processing was used in four studies to identify and extract stigmatizing words from clinical notes. All of the studies reviewed concluded that negative clinician attitudes and the use of stigmatizing language in documentation could negatively impact patient perception of care or health outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The current literature indicates that NLP is an emerging approach to identifying stigmatizing language documented in the EHR. NLP-based solutions can be developed and integrated into routine documentation systems to screen for stigmatizing language and alert clinicians or their supervisors. Potential interventions resulting from this research could generate awareness about how implicit biases affect communication patterns and work to achieve equitable health care for diverse populations.

Examining Inclusive Language in Clinical Narratives in Medical Biochemistry Textbooks to Model Equitable Patient-Centered Care in Preclinical Undergraduate Medical Education

Purpose

When healthcare professionals use biased or stigmatizing language to describe people or conditions, it can impact the quality of care or erode the patient-physician relationship. It is not clear where healthcare professionals acquire biased and stigmatizing language in practice. This study focuses on examining language in educational materials used in training of medical students. Specifically, medical biochemistry textbooks were examined as they are often a first exposure to clinical narratives and communication standards. The aim of this project is to investigate whether medical biochemistry textbooks, widely recommended in preclinical UME, model inclusive language communication in clinical narratives.

Methods

To determine if educational materials follow inclusive writing guidelines, we conducted a modified document analysis on a sample of medical biochemistry textbooks when clinical scenarios were described. Three independent researchers separately reviewed the textbooks, coded the language using NVivo, and generated themes.

Results

Our results show that medical biochemistry textbooks contain language which is not in alignment with the best practices for inclusive language. Our analysis mapped codes to two primary themes of language misalignment. The first theme, "clinical language" (n = 92), included the following codes: difficult patient, general negative descriptive language, patient as failure, and questioning patient credibility. The second primary theme, "identity-first labeling" (n = 251), included 21 codes.

Conclusion

This study provides early evidence that the language used in medical biochemistry textbooks to describe people and conditions is not in alignment with inclusive language recommendations. This can reinforce the way future healthcare professionals speak to and about their patients.

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.

Open Notes Experiences of Parents in the Pediatric ICU

OBJECTIVE

We examined how parents experience and navigate open access to clinical notes ("open notes") in their child's electronic health record and explored their interactions with clinicians during an ICU admission.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative analysis using semistructured interviews of English-speaking parents who accessed their child's clinical notes during a pediatric ICU (general or cardiac) admission. We included patient-parent dyads with an ICU admission ≥48 hours between April 2021 and December 2022, note access by proxy timestamp during the ICU course, and either patient age <12 years or incapacitated adolescent ages 12 to 21 years. Purposive sampling was based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Phone interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive thematic codebook analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 parents and identified 2 thematic categories, outcomes and interactions, in parents accessing clinical notes. Themes of outcomes included applied benefits, psychosocial and emotional value, and negative consequences. Themes of interactions included practical limitations and parental approach and appraisal. The ICU context and power dynamics were a meta-theme, influencing multiple themes. All parents reported positive qualities of note access despite negative consequences related to content, language, burdens, and lack of support. Parents suggested practice and design improvements surrounding open note access.

CONCLUSIONS

Parental experiences with open notes reveal new, unaddressed considerations for documentation access, practices, and purpose. Parents leverage open notes by negotiating between the power dynamics in the ICU and the uncertain boundaries of their role and authority in the electronic health record.

Exploring the dynamics of physician-patient relationships: Factors affecting patient satisfaction and complaints

This review identifes the factors influencing the relationship between physicians and patients that can lead to patients' dissatisfaction and medical complaints. Utilizing a systemic approach 92 studies were retrieved which included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies. Through a thematic analysis of the literature, we identified three interrelated main themes that can influence the relationship between physicians and patients, patients' satisfaction, and the decision to file a medico-legal complaint. The main themes include patient and physician characteristics; the interpersonal relationship between physicians and patients; and the health care system and policies, with relevant subthemes. These themes are demonstrated in a descriptive model. The review suggests areas of focus for physicians who may wish to increase their awareness around the potential sources of relational problems with their patients. Identifying these issues may assist in improvements in the therapeutic relationship with patients, can reduce their medico-legal risk, and enhance the quality of their clinical practice. The findings can also be utilized to support andragogical principles for medical learners. The article can serve as a structured framework to identify potential problems and gaps to design and test effective interventions to mitigate these potential relational problems between physician-patient.

Using Natural Language Processing to Identify Stigmatizing Language in Labor and Birth Clinical Notes

INTRODUCTION

Stigma and bias related to race and other minoritized statuses may underlie disparities in pregnancy and birth outcomes. One emerging method to identify bias is the study of stigmatizing language in the electronic health record. The objective of our study was to develop automated natural language processing (NLP) methods to identify two types of stigmatizing language: marginalizing language and its complement, power/privilege language, accurately and automatically in labor and birth notes.

METHODS

We analyzed notes for all birthing people > 20 weeks' gestation admitted for labor and birth at two hospitals during 2017. We then employed text preprocessing techniques, specifically using TF-IDF values as inputs, and tested machine learning classification algorithms to identify stigmatizing and power/privilege language in clinical notes. The algorithms assessed included Decision Trees, Random Forest, and Support Vector Machines. Additionally, we applied a feature importance evaluation method (InfoGain) to discern words that are highly correlated with these language categories.

RESULTS

For marginalizing language, Decision Trees yielded the best classification with an F-score of 0.73. For power/privilege language, Support Vector Machines performed optimally, achieving an F-score of 0.91. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the selected machine learning methods in classifying language categories in clinical notes.

CONCLUSION

We identified well-performing machine learning methods to automatically detect stigmatizing language in clinical notes. To our knowledge, this is the first study to use NLP performance metrics to evaluate the performance of machine learning methods in discerning stigmatizing language. Future studies should delve deeper into refining and evaluating NLP methods, incorporating the latest algorithms rooted in deep learning.

Biases in Electronic Health Records Data for Generating Real-World Evidence: An Overview

Electronic Health Records (EHR) are increasingly being perceived as a unique source of data for clinical research as they provide unprecedentedly large volumes of real-time data from real-world settings. In this review of the secondary uses of EHR, we identify the anticipated breadth of opportunities, pointing out the data deficiencies and potential biases that are likely to limit the search for true causal relationships. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the types of biases that arise along the pathways that generate real-world evidence and the sources of these biases. We distinguish between two levels in the production of EHR data where biases are likely to arise: (i) at the healthcare system level, where the principal source of bias resides in access to, and provision of, medical care, and in the acquisition and documentation of medical and administrative data; and (ii) at the research level, where biases arise from the processes of extracting, analyzing, and interpreting these data. Due to the plethora of biases, mainly in the form of selection and information bias, we conclude with advising extreme caution about making causal inferences based on secondary uses of EHRs.

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.

Diagnostic error experiences of patients and families with limited English-language health literacy or disadvantaged socioeconomic position in a cross-sectional US population-based survey

BACKGROUND

Language barrier, reduced self-advocacy, lower health literacy or biased care may hinder the diagnostic process. Data on how patients/families with limited English-language health literacy (LEHL) or disadvantaged socioeconomic position (dSEP) experience diagnostic errors are sparse.

METHOD

We compared patient-reported diagnostic errors, contributing factors and impacts between respondents with LEHL or dSEP and their counterparts in the 2017 Institute for Healthcare Improvement US population-based survey, using contingency analysis and multivariable logistic regression models for the analyses.

RESULTS

596 respondents reported a diagnostic error; among these, 381 reported LEHL or dSEP. After adjusting for sex, race/ethnicity and physical health, individuals with LEHL/dSEP were more likely than their counterparts to report unique contributing factors: "(No) qualified translator or healthcare provider that spoke (the patient's) language" (OR and 95% CI 4.4 (1.3 to 14.9)); "not understanding the follow-up plan" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.1)); "too many providers… but no clear leader" (1.8 (1.2 to 2.7)); "not able to keep follow-up appointments" (1.9 (1.1 to 3.2)); "not being able to pay for necessary medical care" (2.5 (1.4 to 4.4)) and "out-of-date or incorrect medical records" (2.6 (1.4 to 4.8)). Participants with LEHL/dSEP were more likely to report long-term emotional, financial and relational impacts, compared with their counterparts. Subgroup analysis (LEHL-only and dSEP-only participants) showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Individuals with LEHL or dSEP identified unique and actionable contributing factors to diagnostic errors. Interpreter access should be viewed as a diagnostic safety imperative, social determinants affecting care access/affordability should be routinely addressed as part of the diagnostic process and patients/families should be encouraged to access and update their medical records. The frequent and disproportionate long-term impacts from self-reported diagnostic error among LEHL/dSEP patients/families raises urgency for greater prevention and supportive efforts.

The Power of Language in Hospital Care for Pregnant and Birthing People: A Vision for Change

Language is commonly defined as the principal method of human communication made up of words and conveyed by writing, speech, or nonverbal expression. In the context of clinical care, language has power and meaning and reflects priorities, beliefs, values, and culture. Stigmatizing language can communicate unintended meanings that perpetuate socially constructed power dynamics and result in bias. This bias may harm pregnant and birthing people by centering positions of power and privilege and by reflecting cultural priorities in the United States, including judgments of demographic and reproductive health characteristics. This commentary builds on relationship-centered care and reproductive justice frameworks to analyze the role and use of language in pregnancy and birth care in the United States, particularly regarding people with marginalized identities. We describe the use of language in written documentation, verbal communication, and behaviors associated with caring for pregnant people. We also present recommendations for change, including alternative language at the individual, clinician, hospital, health systems, and policy levels. We define birth as the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent, no matter what intervention or pathology may be involved. Thus, we propose a cultural shift in hospital-based care for birthing people that centers the birthing person and reconceptualizes all births as physiologic events, approached with a spirit of care, partnership, and support.

Changes in Documentation Due to Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: Protocol for a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Internationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a "dumbing down" of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs.

METHODS

This scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs' documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included.

RESULTS

The results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/46722.

The Incidence and Disparities in Use of Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Notes for Patients With Substance Use Disorder

OBJECTIVE

The language used to describe people with substance use disorder impacts stigma and influences clinical decision making. This study evaluates the presence of stigmatizing language (SL) in clinical notes and detects patient- and provider-level differences.

METHODS

All free-text notes generated in a large health system for patients with substance-related diagnoses between December 2020 and November 2021 were included. A natural language processing algorithm using the National Institute on Drug Abuse's "Words Matter" list was developed to identify use of SL in context.

RESULTS

There were 546,309 notes for 30,391 patients, of which 100,792 (18.4%) contained SL. A total of 18,727 patients (61.6%) had at least one note with SL. The most common SLs used were "abuse" and "substance abuse." Nurses were least likely to use SL (4.1%) while physician assistants were most likely (46.9%). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have SL in their notes (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.17; 95% confidence internal [CI], 1.11-1.23), younger patients aged 18 to 24 were less likely to have SL than patients 45 to 54 years (aOR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61), Asian patients were less likely to have SL than White patients (aOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), and Hispanic patients were less likely to have SL than non-Hispanic patients (aOR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with substance-related diagnoses had at least one note containing SL. There were also several patient characteristic disparities associated with patients having SL in their notes. The work suggests that more clinician interventions about use of SL are needed.

How does work environment relate to diagnostic quality? A prospective, mixed methods study in primary care

OBJECTIVES

The quest to measure and improve diagnosis has proven challenging; new approaches are needed to better understand and measure key elements of the diagnostic process in clinical encounters. The aim of this study was to develop a tool assessing key elements of the diagnostic assessment process and apply it to a series of diagnostic encounters examining clinical notes and encounters' recorded transcripts. Additionally, we aimed to correlate and contextualise these findings with measures of encounter time and physician burnout.

DESIGN

We audio-recorded encounters, reviewed their transcripts and associated them with their clinical notes and findings were correlated with concurrent Mini Z Worklife measures and physician burnout.

SETTING

Three primary urgent-care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

We conducted in-depth evaluations of 28 clinical encounters delivered by seven physicians.

RESULTS

Comparing encounter transcripts with clinical notes, in 24 of 28 (86%) there was high note/transcript concordance for the diagnostic elements on our tool. Reliably included elements were red flags (92% of notes/encounters), aetiologies (88%), likelihood/uncertainties (71%) and follow-up contingencies (71%), whereas psychosocial/contextual information (35%) and mentioning common pitfalls (7%) were often missing. In 22% of encounters, follow-up contingencies were in the note, but absent from the recorded encounter. There was a trend for higher burnout scores being associated with physicians less likely to address key diagnosis items, such as psychosocial history/context.

CONCLUSIONS

A new tool shows promise as a means of assessing key elements of diagnostic quality in clinical encounters. Work conditions and physician reactions appear to correlate with diagnostic behaviours. Future research should continue to assess relationships between time pressure and diagnostic quality.

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.

Deciphering clinical abbreviations with a privacy protecting machine learning system

Physicians write clinical notes with abbreviations and shorthand that are difficult to decipher. Abbreviations can be clinical jargon (writing "HIT" for "heparin induced thrombocytopenia"), ambiguous terms that require expertise to disambiguate (using "MS" for "multiple sclerosis" or "mental status"), or domain-specific vernacular ("cb" for "complicated by"). Here we train machine learning models on public web data to decode such text by replacing abbreviations with their meanings. We report a single translation model that simultaneously detects and expands thousands of abbreviations in real clinical notes with accuracies ranging from 92.1%-97.1% on multiple external test datasets. The model equals or exceeds the performance of board-certified physicians (97.6% vs 88.7% total accuracy). Our results demonstrate a general method to contextually decipher abbreviations and shorthand that is built without any privacy-compromising data.

Accuracy in Patient Understanding of Common Medical Phrases

IMPORTANCE

Despite acknowledging that medical jargon should be avoided, health care practitioners frequently use it when communicating with patients.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the understanding of common medical jargon terms by surveying a cross section of the general public and studying phrases that have established meanings in regular usage but different meanings in a medical context (eg, negative and positive test results).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, participants indicated their understanding of phrases that may have different meanings in medicine than in colloquial English via a mix of short answer and multiple choice questions. Several questions included paired phrases to assess for differences in understanding with or without jargon. Volunteers were recruited at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair near St Paul, Minnesota. An electronic survey was given to a volunteer sample of 215 adults (>18 years) who did not work or train to work in the medical field and spoke and read English.

EXPOSURES

Completing a written or verbal survey.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was an accurate understanding of the medical terminology. Free-text responses were coded by 2 researchers for comprehension. Secondary outcomes looked for associations between volunteer demographics and understanding.

RESULTS

The 215 respondents (135 [63%] female; mean [SD] age, 42 [17] years) demonstrated a varied ability to interpret medical jargon phrases. For example, most participants (207 [96%]) knew that negative cancer screening results meant they did not have cancer, but fewer participants (143 [79%]) knew that the phrase "your tumor is progressing" was bad news, or that positive lymph nodes meant the cancer had spread (170 [67%]). While most (171 [80%]) recognized that an unremarkable chest radiography was good news, only 44 participants (21%) correctly understood that a clinician saying their radiography was impressive was generally bad news. In each of the paired phrases comparing jargon vs nonjargon approaches, the nonjargon phrase was understood significantly better (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that several common phrases are misunderstood when used in a medical setting, with the interpreted meaning frequently the exact opposite of what is intended.

Sharing online clinical notes with patients: implications for nocebo effects and health equity

Patients in around 20 countries worldwide are now offered online access to at least some of their medical records. Access includes test results, medication lists, referral information, and/or the very words written by clinicians (so-called 'open notes'). In this paper, I discuss the possibility of one unintended negative consequence of patient access to their clinical notes-the potential to increase 'nocebo effects'. A growing body of research shows that nocebo effects arise by engaging perceptual and cognitive processes that influence negative expectancies, and as a consequence, adverse health effects. Studies show that increased awareness about the side effects of medications, the framing of information and the socioemotional context of care can increase the risk of nocebo effects. Connecting research into the nocebo effect with open notes provides preliminary support for the hypothesis that patient access to clinical notes might be a forum for facilitating unwanted nocebo effects. Furthermore, current findings indicate that we might expect to see systematic differences in how nocebo effects are experienced among different patient populations. The ethical implications of the tension between transparency and the potential for harm are discussed, with an emphasis on what open notes might mean for justice and equity in clinical care for a range of already marginalised patient populations. I argue that to resolve these challenges does not thereby justify 'closed notes', and conclude with suggestions for how health systems and clinicians might adapt to this innovation to reduce the risk of potential nocebo effects arising via this novel route.

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.

Use of seven types of medical jargon by male and female primary care providers at a university health center

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were to investigate extent and type of jargon use among primary care providers at a university health center, to evaluate the association of jargon use with patient outcomes, and to identify differences in jargon use between male and female providers.

METHOD

The study employed a causal comparative design. Audio recordings of 87 primary care interviews were transcribed and coded using Pitt and Hendrickson's seven-category medical jargon classification framework.

RESULTS

Nearly 80% of appointments included at least one instance of unexplained jargon, with an average of more than four uses of jargon per visit. The most frequently used types of jargon were technical terminology and medical vernacular. Acronyms and abbreviations, medicalized English, and unnecessary synonyms were also regularly used. Just under half of distinct jargon terms were explained. Male providers used nearly 50% more jargon per minute than female providers, and they used more technical jargon than did their female colleagues. However, they explained that jargon just as frequently as female providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas previous studies have frequently limited the operational definition of jargon to two or three types, the comprehensive typology proposed by Pitt and Hendrickson provides a useful tool for identifying a wide range of jargon usage. Future research should examine the outcomes of this range of jargon types in more varied, less educated patient populations, and across different types of healthcare providers.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

With jargon used on average more than once every four minutes in our sample, and only half of jargon terms explained, medical jargon may be more of a problem even in primary care contexts than providers themselves realize. Male providers especially may want to make efforts to become more conscious of their jargon use and take care to explain terms, in an effort to facilitate more effective patient-provider communication and improved patient outcomes.

Presenting complaint: use of language that disempowers patients

Caitríona Cox and Zoë Fritz argue that outdated medical language that casts doubt, belittles, or blames patients jeopardises the therapeutic relationship and is overdue for change

The 21st Century Cures Act and Multiuser Electronic Health Record Access: Potential Pitfalls of Information Release

Although the Office of The National Coordinator for Health Information Technology's (ONC) Information Blocking Provision in the Cures Act Final Rule is an important step forward in providing patients free and unfettered access to their electronic health information (EHI), in the contexts of multiuser electronic health record (EHR) access and proxy access, concerns on the potential for harm in adolescent care contexts exist. We describe how the provision could erode patients' (both adolescent and older patients alike) trust and willingness to seek care. The rule's preventing harm exception does not apply to situations where the patient is a minor and the health care provider wishes to restrict a parent's or guardian's access to the minor's EHI to avoid violating the minor's confidentiality and potentially harming patient-clinician trust. This may violate previously developed government principles in the design and implementation of EHRs for pediatric care. Creating legally acceptable workarounds by means such as duplicate "shadow charting" will be burdensome (and prohibitive) for health care providers. Under the privacy exception, patients have the opportunity to request information to not be shared; however, depending on institutional practices, providers and patients may have limited awareness of this exception. Notably, the privacy exception states that providers cannot "improperly encourage or induce a patient's request to block information." Fearing being found in violation of the information blocking provisions, providers may feel that they are unable to guide patients navigating the release of their EHI in the multiuser or proxy access setting. ONC should provide more detailed guidance on their website and targeted outreach to providers and their specialty organizations that care for adolescents and other individuals affected by the Cures Act, and researchers should carefully monitor charting habits in these multiuser or proxy access situations.

Negative Patient Descriptors: Documenting Racial Bias In The Electronic Health Record

Little is known about how racism and bias may be communicated in the medical record. This study used machine learning to analyze electronic health records (EHRs) from an urban academic medical center and to investigate whether providers' use of negative patient descriptors varied by patient race or ethnicity. We analyzed a sample of 40,113 history and physical notes (January 2019-October 2020) from 18,459 patients for sentences containing a negative descriptor (for example, resistant or noncompliant) of the patient or the patient's behavior. We used mixed effects logistic regression to determine the odds of finding at least one negative descriptor as a function of the patient's race or ethnicity, controlling for sociodemographic and health characteristics. Compared with White patients, Black patients had 2.54 times the odds of having at least one negative descriptor in the history and physical notes. Our findings raise concerns about stigmatizing language in the EHR and its potential to exacerbate racial and ethnic health care disparities.

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.

The benefits and harms of open notes in mental health: A Delphi survey of international experts

IMPORTANCE

As of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.

OBJECTIVE

To solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.

DESIGN

An online 3-round Delphi poll.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

International experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.

MAIN OUTCOMES, AND MEASURES

An expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.

RESULTS

A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items: 42 potential benefits, and 48 potential harms. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items. There was consensus that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients' understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments, and that access could enhance patient recall and sense of empowerment. Experts also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization. However, panelists predicted there could be an increase in patients demanding changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians would be less detailed/accurate in documentation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.

OpenNotes: Anticipatory Guidance and Ethical Considerations for Pediatric Psychologists in Interprofessional Settings

OBJECTIVES

The 21st Century Cures Act included an "OpenNotes" mandate to foster transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians by offering rapid electronic access to clinical notes. This article seeks to address concerns about increased documentation burden, vulnerability to patient complaints, and other unforeseen consequences of patients having near-real-time access to their records.

METHODS

This topical review explores both extant literature, and case examples from the authors' direct experience, about potential responses/reactions to OpenNotes.

RESULTS

The ethics of disclosing medical information calls for nuanced approaches: Although too little access can undermine a patient's autonomy and the capacity for truly egalitarian shared decision-making, unfettered access to all medical information has significant potential to harm them. Suggested strategies for mitigating risks in premature disclosure include patient and provider education and "modularizing" sensitive information in notes.

CONCLUSION

The OpenNotes era has ushered in the possibilities of greater patient and family collaboration in shared decision-making and reduced barriers to documentation sharing. However, it has raised new ethical and clinician documentation considerations. In addition to clinician education, patients and families could benefit from education around the purpose of clinical documentation, how to utilize OpenNotes, and the benefits of engaging in dialogue regarding the content and tone of documentation.

Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice

In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians ('open notes'). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients' access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.