Open notes sounds great, but will a provider's documentation change? An exploratory study of the effect of open notes on oncology documentation

The 21st Century Cures Act: More Harm Than Good for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence?

The 21st Century Cures Act requires that health organizations make all medical records rapidly available to patients through secure online portals. Referred to as "open notes," this approach is intended to improve health outcomes by facilitating easier and more transparent communication between patients and providers. For patients experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), however, open notes can create serious safety risks to their physical and mental health when not handled carefully. This clinical note aims to raise awareness of how open notes can be harmful in IPV situations, provide a set of evidence-informed recommendations on how healthcare providers and institutions can help to mitigate this harm, and outline areas for future research.

Re-Envisioning Electronic Health Records to Optimize Patient-Centered Cancer Care, Quality, Surveillance, and Research

Electronic health records (EHRs) are a significant advancement over paper records. However, the full potential of EHRs for improving care quality, patient outcomes, surveillance, and research in cancer care is yet to be realized. The organic evolution of EHRs has resulted in a number of unanticipated consequences including increased time spent by clinicians interfacing with the EHR for daily workflows. Patient access to clinicians and their records has been an important advancement in patient-centered care; however, this has brought to light additional gaps and challenges in EHRs meeting these needs. A significant challenge for EHR design and physician workflows is how best to meet the complex goals and priorities of various stakeholders including providers, researchers, patients, health systems, payors, and regulatory agencies. The National Cancer Policy Forum convened a 2022 workshop, "Innovations in Electronic Health Records for Oncology Care, Research and Surveillance," to address these challenges and to facilitate collaboration across all user groups with the goal of re-envisioning EHRs that will better support shared goals of improving patient outcomes and advancing cancer care and research without overburdening clinicians with administrative tasks. Here, we summarize the current EHR ecosystem as discussed at the workshop and highlight opportunities to improve EHR contributions to oncology evidence and care.

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.

Affordance trajectories and the usefulness of online records access among older adults in Sweden

Objective

The current understanding of the breadth of individual differences in how eHealth technologies are perceived as useful for different purposes is incomprehensive. The aim/purpose of the study is to improve the understanding of diverse perceptions of the usefulness of technologies by exploring older adults' use of their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs).

Methods

The study applies and extends Affordance Theory based on an empirical analysis of data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey on attitudes toward PAEHR in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia. Responses from 3964 participants in Sweden, aged 65 + years were analysed. Data included demographics and agreement ratings to reasons for using PAEHR. To analyse variation in the reasons for using PAEHR, group comparisons were conducted based on gender (male/female), age group (65-74, 75-84 and 85+) and earlier encouragement to use PAEHR.

Results

Overall, the findings suggest that PAEHRs have multiple parallel affordance trajectories and affordance potencies that actualise differently depending on needs. The top reasons, pointing to both orientational and goal-oriented affordances for using PAEHR, were improving understanding of health issues, getting an overview of medical history/treatment and ensuring understanding of what the doctor said. Men reported more often sharing information with relatives or friends as a reason to access PAEHR. Women were more inclined, albeit similarly to men less frequently, to read their PAEHR for detecting errors. Age had little influence on reasons for using PAEHR.

Conclusions

The study applies and extends Affordance Theory in the context of older adults' PAEHR use based on findings from the largest national investigation of reasons for older users to access PAEHR in Sweden demonstrating the applicability of the theory in improving the understanding of the diversity of individual perceptions on eHealth technologies.

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.

Shared Decision Making in the Care of Patients With Cancer

Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that is suitable for the care of patients with cancer. It involves a collaborative conversation seeking to respond sensibly to the problematic situation of the patient, cocreating a plan of care that makes sense intellectually, practically, and emotionally. Genetic testing to identify whether a patient has a hereditary cancer syndrome represents a prime example of the importance for SDM in oncology. SDM is important for genetic testing because not only results affect current cancer treatment, cancer surveillance, and care of relatives but also these tests generate both complex results and psychological concerns. SDM conversations should take place without interruptions, disruptions, or hurry and be supported, where available, by tools that assist in conveying the relevant evidence and in supporting plan development. Examples of these tools include treatment SDM encounter aids and the Genetics Adviser. Patients are expected to play a key role in making decisions and implementing plans of care, but several evolving challenges related to the unfettered access to information and expertise of varying trustworthiness and complexity in between interactions with clinicians can both support and complicate this role. SDM should result in a plan of care that is maximally responsive to the biology and biography of each patient, maximally supportive of each patient's goals and priorities, and minimally disruptive of their lives and loves.

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.

Black and Latinx Primary Caregiver Considerations for Developing and Implementing a Machine Learning-Based Model for Detecting Child Abuse and Neglect With Implications for Racial Bias Reduction: Qualitative Interview Study With Primary Caregivers

BACKGROUND

Child abuse and neglect, once viewed as a social problem, is now an epidemic. Moreover, health providers agree that existing stereotypes may link racial and social class issues to child abuse. The broad adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in clinical settings offers a new avenue for addressing this epidemic. To reduce racial bias and improve the development, implementation, and outcomes of machine learning (ML)-based models that use EHR data, it is crucial to involve marginalized members of the community in the process.

OBJECTIVE

This study elicited Black and Latinx primary caregivers' viewpoints regarding child abuse and neglect while living in underserved communities to highlight considerations for designing an ML-based model for detecting child abuse and neglect in emergency departments (EDs) with implications for racial bias reduction and future interventions.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews with 20 Black and Latinx primary caregivers whose children were cared for at a single pediatric tertiary-care ED to gain insights about child abuse and neglect and their experiences with health providers.

RESULTS

Three central themes were developed in the coding process: (1) primary caregivers' perspectives on the definition of child abuse and neglect, (2) primary caregivers' experiences with health providers and medical documentation, and (3) primary caregivers' perceptions of child protective services.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight essential considerations from primary caregivers for developing an ML-based model for detecting child abuse and neglect in ED settings. This includes how to define child abuse and neglect from a primary caregiver lens. Miscommunication between patients and health providers can potentially lead to a misdiagnosis, and therefore, have a negative impact on medical documentation. Additionally, the outcome and application of the ML-based models for detecting abuse and neglect may cause additional harm than expected to the community. Further research is needed to validate these findings and integrate them into creating an ML-based model.