Tackling Ambulatory Safety Risks Through Patient Engagement: What 10,000 Patients and Families Say About Safety-Related Knowledge, Behaviors, and Attitudes After Reading Visit Notes

A Nordic Perspective on Patient Online Record Access and the European Health Data Space

The Nordic countries are, together with the United States, forerunners in online record access (ORA), which has now become widespread. The importance of accessible and structured health data has also been highlighted by policy makers internationally. To ensure the full realization of ORA's potential in the short and long term, there is a pressing need to study ORA from a cross-disciplinary, clinical, humanistic, and social sciences perspective that looks beyond strictly technical aspects. In this viewpoint paper, we explore the policy changes in the European Health Data Space (EHDS) proposal to advance ORA across the European Union, informed by our research in a Nordic-led project that carries out the first of its kind, large-scale international investigation of patients' ORA-NORDeHEALTH (Nordic eHealth for Patients: Benchmarking and Developing for the Future). We argue that the EHDS proposal will pave the way for patients to access and control third-party access to their electronic health records. In our analysis of the proposal, we have identified five key principles for ORA: (1) the right to access, (2) proxy access, (3) patient input of their own data, (4) error and omission rectification, and (5) access control. ORA implementation today is fragmented throughout Europe, and the EHDS proposal aims to ensure all European citizens have equal online access to their health data. However, we argue that in order to implement the EHDS, we need more research evidence on the key ORA principles we have identified in our analysis. Results from the NORDeHEALTH project provide some of that evidence, but we have also identified important knowledge gaps that still need further exploration.

Exploring potential drivers of patient engagement with their health data through digital platforms: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement when providing patient access to health data results from an interaction between the available tools and individual capabilities. The recent digital advancements of the healthcare field have altered the manifestation and importance of patient engagement. However, a comprehensive assessment of what factors contribute to patient engagement remain absent. In this review article, we synthesised the most frequently discussed factors that can foster patient engagement with their health data.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were synthesized within 7 layers using a thematic analysis: (1) social and demographic factors, (2) patient ability factors, (3) patient motivation factors, (4) factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, (5) health system factors, (6) technological factors, and (7) policy factors.

RESULTS

We identified 5801 academic and 200 Gy literature records, and included 292 (4.83%) in this review. Overall, 44 factors that can affect patient engagement with their health data were extracted. We extracted 6 social and demographic factors, 6 patient ability factors, 12 patient motivation factors, 7 factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, 4 health system factors, 6 technological factors, and 3 policy factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving patient engagement with their health data enables the development of patient-centered healthcare, though it can also exacerbate existing inequities. While expanding patient access to health data is an important step towards fostering shared decision-making in healthcare and subsequently empowering patients, it is important to ensure that these developments reach all sectors of the community.

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.

Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Experiences of Patients With Mental Health Issues Having Web-Based Access to Their Records: National Patient Survey

BACKGROUND

Sharing mental health notes through patient accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) is controversial. Many psychiatric organizations and regions in Sweden have resisted the implementation, as clinicians worry about possible harms when patients are reading their notes. Despite the documented benefits of PAEHRs, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding whether patients with mental health issues could reap similar benefits of reading their notes as other patient groups.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to examine the use, attitudes, and experiences of patients with mental health issues by reading their notes in the PAEHR and, moreover, whether their experiences differ from other patient groups, and if so, how.

METHODS

A national patient survey was conducted with answers from 2587 patients from different patient groups. In total, 504 respondents (19.5%) indicated that they experienced a mental health disease. Answers from this patient group were compared to the answers from all other respondents. Survey questions related to attitudes, information usage, and effects on contacts with care were selected for analysis. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to detect groupwise differences.

RESULTS

Patients with mental health issues use PAEHRs for checking that they have received the right care (mean_mental health 2.83, SD_mental health 1.39; mean_others 2.62, SD_others 1.37; P=.002) or suspected inaccuracies (mean_mental health 2.55, SD_mental health 1.34; mean_others 2.31, SD_others 1.30; P=.001), blocking access for professionals in other specialties (mean_mental health 3.43, SD_mental health 1.46; mean_others 3.04, SD_others 1.42; P<.001), and checking which care professionals have accessed their record (mean_mental health 4.28, SD_mental health 1.14; mean_others 4.05, SD_others 1.25; P<.001) to a significantly higher degree than other patients. On the other hand, the results show that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mental health issues (mean_mental health 3.38, SD_mental health 1.21; mean_others 3.52, SD_others 1.18; P=.02) believe that PAEHRs help them in shared decision-making compared to other patient groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with mental health issues who took part in the survey, as a group, express some minor differences in both the use of the PAEHR and their experiences regarding its usefulness, as compared to other patients, as a group. This patient group shows a slightly higher interest in 2 types of use: checking for accuracy of care in the record and blocking access to mental health notes for professionals from other parts of the health care system. Compared to other patient groups, these patients are less likely to experience that the PAEHR is a support in shared decision-making. The study indicates that the benefits of PAEHR on a general level are the same for this patient group as for other patients. The study does not support clinicians' worry about possible harm to this patient group. Further research is however needed.

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.

Consultants' and referrers' perceived barriers to closing the cross-institutional referral loop, and perceived impact on clinical care

BACKGROUND

Cross-institutional (external) referrals are prone to communication breakdowns, increasing patient safety risks, clinician burnout, and healthcare costs. To close these external referral loops, referring primary care physicians (PCPs) need to receive patient information from consultants at different healthcare institutions. Although existing studies investigated the early phases of external referral loops, we lack sufficient knowledge about the closing phases of these loops. This knowledge could allow health care institutions to improve care coordination and rates of closed referral loops by implementing socio-technical interventions for patient information exchange throughout a referral loop. Human factors engineering (HFE) provides a systematic approach to advance our understanding of barriers perceived by physicians. Using HFE, our objective was to characterize referring and consulting physicians' barriers to closing referral loops and implications for care.

METHODS

This qualitative cross-sectional study included semi-structured interviews with referrers and external consultants. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 framework to conduct rapid qualitative analyses, determining perceived barriers and related implications. Main measures were consultants' and referrers' perceptions of, and experiences with, barriers to external referrals.

RESULTS

Six referring PCPs and 12 consultants participated from two healthcare systems and four medical specialties. Physicians perceived three main barriers in external referrals: receipt of excessive and unnecessary faxed documents, missing or delayed documentation, and organizational policies regarding information privacy interfering with closing the loop. Compared to internal referrals, physicians reported increased staff burden, patient frustration, and delays in diagnosis with external referrals. Consultants reported the ability to provide the same level of care to patients with internal or external referrals. However, consultants described communication breakdowns that prohibited confirmation of follow-up plan retrieval, initiation, or effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Physicians reported technological and organizational barriers to closing cross-institutional referral loops. Promises of HIE technology for external referrals have not fully materialized. Among physicians and patients, retrieval and exchange of medical information increases perceived workload, burden, and frustration. These increases are not accurately captured by traditional organizational metrics. This study provides evidence that informs future human factors engineering research to address perceived barriers and guide future HIE design or implementation.

Partnering with Patients and Families to Improve Diagnostic Safety through the OurDX Tool: Effects of Race, Ethnicity, and Language Preference

BACKGROUND

Patients and families at risk for health disparities may also be at higher risk for diagnostic errors but less likely to report them.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore differences in race, ethnicity, and language preference associated with patient and family contributions and concerns using an electronic previsit tool designed to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process (DxP).

METHODS

Cross-sectional study of 5,731 patients and families presenting to three subspecialty clinics at an urban pediatric hospital May to December 2021 who completed a previsit tool, codeveloped and tested with patients and families. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to share visit priorities, recent histories, and potential diagnostic concerns. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated with patient-reported diagnostic concerns. We conducted chart review on a random subset of visits to review concerns and determine whether patient/family contributions were included in the visit note.

RESULTS

Participants provided a similar mean number of contributions regardless of patient race, ethnicity, or language preference. Compared with patients self-identifying as White, those self-identifying as Black (odds ratio [OR]: 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.18, 2.43]) or "other" race (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: [1.08, 2.03]) were more likely to report a diagnostic concern. Participants who preferred a language other than English were more likely to report a diagnostic concern than English-preferring patients (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: [1.78, 3.59]. There were no significant differences in physician-verified diagnostic concerns or in integration of patient contributions into the note based on race, ethnicity, or language preference.

CONCLUSION

Participants self-identifying as Black or "other" race, or those who prefer a language other than English were 1.5 to 2.5 times more likely than their counterparts to report potential diagnostic concerns when proactively asked to provide this information prior to a visit. Actively engaging patients and families in the DxP may uncover opportunities to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors and potential safety disparities.

Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns.

METHOD

We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions.

RESULTS

7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots.

CONCLUSION

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

The State-of-the-Art of Patient Portals: Adapting to External Factors, Addressing Barriers, and Innovating

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Recent external factors-the 21st Century Cures Act and the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic-have stimulated major changes in the patient portal landscape. The objective of this state-of-the-art review is to describe recent developments in the patient portal literature and to identify recommendations and future directions for the design, implementation, and evaluation of portals.

METHODS

To focus this review on salient contemporary issues, we elected to center it on four topics: (1) 21st Century Cures Act's impact on patient portals (e.g., Open Notes); (2) COVID-19's pandemic impact on portals; (3) proxy access to portals; and (4) disparities in portal adoption and use. We conducted targeted PubMed searches to identify recent empirical studies addressing these topics, used a two-part screening process to determine relevance, and conducted thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Our search identified 174 unique papers, 74 were relevant empirical studies and included in this review. Among these papers, we identified 10 themes within our four a priori topics, including preparing for and understanding the consequences of increased patient access to their electronic health information (Cures Act); developing, deploying, and evaluating new virtual care processes (COVID-19); understanding current barriers to formal proxy use (proxy access); and addressing disparities in portal adoption and use (disparities).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that the recent trends toward understanding the implications of immediate access to most test results, exploring ways to close gaps in portal adoption and use among different sub-populations, and finding ways to leverage portals to improve health and health care are the next steps in the maturation of patient portals and are key areas that require more research. It is important that health care organizations share their innovative portal efforts, so that successful measures can be tested in other contexts, and progress can continue.

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.

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.

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.

Inviting patients to identify diagnostic concerns through structured evaluation of their online visit notes

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review.

OBJECTIVE

To test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes.

METHODS

In a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables.

RESULTS

Of 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01).

CONCLUSION

Patients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.

Attitudes, experiences, and safety behaviours of adolescents and young adults who read visit notes: Opportunities to engage patients early in their care

The Cures Act made access to electronic visit notes ('open notes') nearly universal across the USA, and efforts to share open notes with patients are underway worldwide. This landmark policy change provides an opportunity to engage adolescents and young adults (AYA) early in their care, yet little is known about their attitudes related to reading notes. We compared the responses of 332 AYA (13-25 years old) and 6,914 adults (>25 years old) in a 2016 survey at two USA academic adult and paediatric hospitals. Over 85% of AYA and adults with available notes reported reading at least one note in the prior year. AYA reported similar benefits from note-reading to adults in 15 outcomes related to engagement, relational effects and safety behaviours, supporting efforts to engage AYA as partners in their care using open notes.

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes

Background

Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes.

Objective

This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention.

Methods

Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements.

Results

Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits.

Conclusions

OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Changes in Clinician Attitudes Toward Sharing Visit Notes: Surveys Pre-and Post-Implementation

BACKGROUND

Clinician perceptions before and after inviting patients to read office notes (open notes) are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To describe changes in clinicians' attitudes about sharing notes with patients.

DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MAIN MEASURE

Survey of outpatient primary and specialty care clinicians who were from a large group practice and had one or more patients who accessed notes. The main outcome was percent change (before vs. after implementation) in clinician perception that online visit notes are beneficial overall.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 563 invited clinicians, 400 (71%) took the baseline survey; 295 were eligible for a follow-up survey with 192 (65%) responding (119 primary care, 47 medical specialties, 26 surgical specialties). Before implementation, 29% agreed or somewhat agreed that visit notes online are beneficial overall, increasing to 71% following implementation (p<0.001); 44% switched beliefs from bad to good idea; and 2% reported the opposite change (p<0.001). This post-implementation change was observed in all clinician categories. Compared to pre-implementation, fewer clinicians had concerns about office visits taking longer (47% pre vs. 15% post) or requiring more time for questions (71% vs. 16%), or producing notes (57% vs. 28%). Before and after implementation, most clinicians reported being less candid in documentation (65% vs. 52%) and that patients would have more control of their care (72% vs. 78%) and worry more (72% vs. 65%).

CONCLUSIONS

Following implementation, more primary and specialty care clinicians agreed that sharing notes with patients online was beneficial overall. Fewer had concerns about more time needed for office visits or documentation. Most thought patients would worry more and reported being less candid in documentation.

Notes at your fingertips: Open note considerations regarding pediatric and adolescent care

The clinician's note serves an increasing number of audiences, the most recent addition being the patient and, in the case of pediatrics, the parent/guardian. The early work of the OpenNotes initiative followed by the recently enacted 21^st Century Cures Act Information Blocking Rule has mandated easy and timely electronic access to notes involving their clinical care. While many benefits have already been described and most drawbacks unrealized, the care of pediatric and adolescent patients brings unique challenges to enable this functionality while preserving patient, parent, and family confidentiality. Given statewide variability in affording these protections, there remains a technological gap in uniformly assisting clinicians to do the right thing while remaining compliant with the law. More research is needed on the impact and new workflow considerations for using an open notes approach across care settings and within academic institutions. Additional education and training are needed to adapt note writing to accommodate patient understanding and encourage patient engagement while conveying the complexity of medical decision making. As transparency and shared medical decision-making become more prevalent within medicine, clinicians' communication and documentation styles need to evolve to meet that challenge.

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

BACKGROUND

Sharing outpatient notes with patients may bring clinically important benefits, but notes may sometimes cause patients to feel judged or offended, and thereby reduce trust.

OBJECTIVE

As part of a larger survey examining the effects of open notes, we sought to understand how many patients feel judged or offended due to something they read in outpatient notes, and why.

DESIGN

We analyzed responses from a large Internet survey of adult patients who used secure patient portals and had at least 1 visit note available in a 12-month period at 2 large academic medical systems in Boston and Seattle, and in a rural integrated health system in Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult ambulatory patients with portal accounts in health systems that offered open notes for up to 7 years.

APPROACH

(1) Quantitative analysis of 2 dichotomous questions, and (2) qualitative thematic analysis of free-text responses on what patients found judgmental or offensive.

KEY RESULTS

Among 22,959 patient respondents who had read at least one note and answered the 2 questions, 2,411 (10.5%) reported feeling judged and/or offended by something they read in their note(s). Patients who reported poor health, unemployment, or inability to work were more likely to feel judged or offended. Among the 2,411 patients who felt judged and/or offended, 2,137 (84.5%) wrote about what prompted their feelings. Three thematic domains emerged: (1) errors and surprises, (2) labeling, and (3) disrespect.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 10 respondents reported feeling judged/offended by something they read in an outpatient note due to the perception that it contained errors, surprises, labeling, or evidence of disrespect. The content and tone may be particularly important to patients in poor health. Enhanced clinician awareness of the patient perspective may promote an improved medical lexicon, reduce the transmission of bias to other clinicians, and reinforce healing relationships.

Speaking up about patient-perceived serious visit note errors: Patient and family experiences and recommendations

BACKGROUND

Open notes invite patients and families to read ambulatory visit notes through the patient portal. Little is known about the extent to which they identify and speak up about perceived errors. Understanding the barriers to speaking up can inform quality improvements.

OBJECTIVE

To describe patient and family attitudes, experiences, and barriers related to speaking up about perceived serious note errors.

METHODS

Mixed method analysis of a 2016 electronic survey of patients and families at 2 northeast US academic medical centers. Participants had active patient portal accounts and at least 1 note available in the preceding 12 months.

RESULTS

6913 adult patients (response rate 28%) and 3672 pediatric families (response rate 17%) completed the survey. In total, 8724/9392 (93%) agreed that reporting mistakes improves patient safety. Among 8648 participants who read a note, 1434 (17%) perceived ≥1 mistake. 627/1434 (44%) reported the mistake was serious and 342/627 (56%) contacted their provider. Participants who self-identified as Black or African American, Asian, "other," or "multiple" race(s) (OR 0.50; 95% CI (0.26,0.97)) or those who reported poorer health (OR 0.58; 95% CI (0.37,0.90)) were each less likely to speak up than white or healthier respondents, respectively. The most common barriers to speaking up were not knowing how to report a mistake (61%) and avoiding perception as a "troublemaker" (34%). Qualitative analysis of 476 free-text suggestions revealed practical recommendations and proposed innovations for partnering with patients and families.

CONCLUSIONS

About half of patients and families who perceived a serious mistake in their notes reported it. Identified barriers demonstrate modifiable issues such as establishing clear mechanisms for reporting and more challenging issues such as creating a supportive culture. Respondents offered new ideas for engaging patients and families in improving note accuracy.

COVID-19 and Open Notes: A New Method to Enhance Patient Safety and Trust

From April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, all providers in the United States must offer patients access to the medical information housed in their electronic records. Via secure health portals, patients can log in to access lab and test results, lists of prescribed medications, referral appointments, and the narrative reports written by clinicians (so-called open notes). As US providers implement this practice innovation, we describe six promising ways in which patients' access to their notes might help address problems that either emerged with or were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

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.

Assessment of Patients' Ability to Review Electronic Health Record Information to Identify Potential Errors: Cross-sectional Web-Based Survey

Background

Sharing personal health information positively impacts quality of care across several domains, and particularly, safety and patient-centeredness. Patients may identify and flag up inconsistencies in their electronic health records (EHRs), leading to improved information quality and patient safety. However, in order to identify potential errors, patients need to be able to understand the information contained in their EHRs.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess patients’ perceptions of their ability to understand the information contained in their EHRs and to analyze the main barriers to their understanding. Additionally, the main types of patient-reported errors were characterized.

Methods

A cross-sectional web-based survey was undertaken between March 2017 and September 2017. A total of 682 registered users of the Care Information Exchange, a patient portal, with at least one access during the time of the study were invited to complete the survey containing both structured (multiple choice) and unstructured (free text) questions. The survey contained questions on patients’ perceived ability to understand their EHR information and therefore, to identify errors. Free-text questions allowed respondents to expand on the reasoning for their structured responses and provide more detail about their perceptions of EHRs and identifying errors within them. Qualitative data were systematically reviewed by 2 independent researchers using the framework analysis method in order to identify emerging themes.

Results

A total of 210 responses were obtained. The majority of the responses (123/210, 58.6%) reported understanding of the information. The main barriers identified were information-related (medical terminology and knowledge and interpretation of test results) and technology-related (user-friendliness of the portal, information display). Inconsistencies relating to incomplete and incorrect information were reported in 12.4% (26/210) of the responses.

Conclusions

While the majority of the responses affirmed the understanding of the information contained within the EHRs, both technology and information-based barriers persist. There is a potential to improve the system design to better support opportunities for patients to identify errors. This is with the aim of improving the accuracy, quality, and timeliness of the information held in the EHRs and a mechanism to further engage patients in their health care.

A patient and family reporting system for perceived ambulatory note mistakes: experience at 3 U.S. healthcare centers

OBJECTIVE

The study sought to test a patient and family online reporting system for perceived ambulatory visit note inaccuracies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We implemented a patient and family electronic reporting system at 3 U.S. healthcare centers: a northeast urban academic adult medical center (AD), a northeast urban academic pediatric medical center (PED), and a southeast nonprofit hospital network (NET). Patients and families reported potential documentation inaccuracies after reading primary care and subspecialty visit notes. Results were characterized using descriptive statistics and coded for clinical relevance.

RESULTS

We received 1440 patient and family reports (780 AD, 402 PED, and 258 NET), and 27% of the reports identified a potential inaccuracy (25% AD, 35% PED, 28% NET). Among these, patients and families indicated that the potential inaccuracy was important or very important in 58% of reports (55% AD, 55% PED, 71% NET). The most common types of potential inaccuracies included description of symptoms (21%), past medical problems (21%), medications (18%), and important information that was missing (15%). Most patient- and family-reported inaccuracies resulted in a change to care or to the medical record (55% AD, 67% PED, data not available at NET).

DISCUSSION

About one-quarter of patients and families using an online reporting system identified potential documentation inaccuracies in visit notes and more than half were considered important by patients and clinicians, underscoring the potential role of patients and families as ambulatory safety partners.

CONCLUSIONS

Partnering with patients and families to obtain reports on inaccuracies in visit notes may contribute to safer care. Mechanisms to encourage greater use of patient and family reporting systems are needed.

Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop

Background

Missed test‐results and failure to follow‐up test‐results are major patient safety concerns. Strategies to improve test‐results management have predominantly focused on clinician‐based interventions, with patients principally involved in studies of test‐result communication preferences, the impact of patient portals or experiences with reporting processes in primary care.

Objective

To identify consumer perspectives and experiences of the challenges they have faced with test‐results management, through consumer participation in qualitative data analysis.

Design and participants

Volunteers (n = 10) were recruited to participate in a health consumer reference group workshop on test‐results management. Prior to the workshop, consumers selected topics for discussion using a preference poll. During the workshop, consumers participated in qualitative data analysis of de‐identified excerpts of previously collected interview data discussing hospital test‐results management. Researchers (n = 5) guided consumers through the analytical process and discussion of themes. Discussions were audio‐recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis.

Results

Consumer‐selected topics for discussion were ‘Transitions of Care’ and ‘Access’. Consumer data analysis prompted broader discussion including lived experiences. Following the workshop, a second level of content analysis pinpointed issues with implications for patient safety highlighting that consumers were astutely aware of macrolevel ‘Systems Factors’ relating to ‘Emergency Departments’ and the health system, as well as microlevel ‘Patient Factors’ (eg patient preferences and circumstances) which impact a patient's understanding during the ‘Communication’ (clinician to patient/between clinicians) of test‐results ‘Information’ (or lack thereof).

Conclusions

Consumers identified the challenges patients experience with test‐results management, and our findings highlight areas for potential improvement in patient safety.

Patient or public contribution

Ten health consumer volunteers actively participated in the test‐results management data analysis workshop conducted in this study. Two health consumers also volunteered to read and comment on the draft manuscript.

Preserving privacy for pediatric patients and families: use of confidential note types in pediatric ambulatory care

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates and characterizes the use of a confidential clinic note type as part of the implementation of open notes at a free-standing children's hospital. We describe how this electronic health record feature which disables patient and family access to selected notes in the patient portal is used across our institution, which clinicians are using this feature, and the type of data our clinicians consider confidential.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Through retrospective chart review, we have evaluated the use of a confidential note type over a 1-year period.

RESULTS

We identified 402 964 clinic notes created during a 1-year period, of which 9346 (2.3%) were flagged as confidential. Use of this confidential note type was associated with female patient sex and increase in patient age. It was used most frequently by a small subset of providers. 922 (83.8%) of 1100 notes manually reviewed contained sensitive information. Reasons for confidential notes varied, but patient's mental health was most commonly identified.

DISCUSSION

Our data demonstrate variability in the use of a confidential note type across specialties, patient ages, and types of confidential information. This note type is frequently utilized by a subset of providers who often manage sensitive patient and parent information. As vendors and institutions enable open notes, thoughtful implementation and provider education surrounding the use of this confidential feature is needed.

CONCLUSION

A confidential clinic note feature is an integral aspect of pediatric open notes implementation. This feature supports protection of confidential information pertaining to our patients and their caregivers.

Online electronic healthcare records: Comparing the views of cancer patients and others

This study investigates differences in attitudes towards, and experiences with, online electronic health records between cancer patients and patients with other conditions, highlighting what is characteristic to cancer patients. A national patient survey on online access to electronic health records was conducted, where cancer patients were compared with all other respondents. Overall, 2587 patients completed the survey (response rate 0.61%). A total of 347 respondents (13.4%) indicated that they suffered from cancer. Results showed that cancer patients are less likely than other patients to use online electronic health records due to general interest (p < 0.001), but more likely for getting an overview of their health history (p = 0.001) and to prepare for visits (p < 0.001). Moreover, cancer patients rate benefits of accessing their electronic health records online higher than other patients and see larger positive effects regarding improved communication with and involvement in healthcare.

Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes

Importance

As health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.

Objective

To assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this survey study, a total of 136 815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.

Exposures

Access to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.

Results

Of 136 815 patients who received survey invitations, 29 656 (21.7%) responded and 22 889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ≥4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

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

IMPORTANCE

The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires that patients be given electronic access to all the information in their electronic medical records. The regulations for implementation of this law give patients far easier access to information about their care, including the notes their clinicians write.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinicians' views and experiences with sharing clinical notes (open notes) with patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Web-based survey study of physicians, advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, and therapists at 3 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; and rural Pennsylvania where notes have been shared across all outpatient specialties for at least 4 years. Participants were clinicians in hospital-based offices and community practices who had written at least 1 note opened by a patient in the year prior to the survey, which was administered from May 21, 2018, to August 31, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of sharing clinical notes with patients.

RESULTS

Invitations were sent to 6064 clinicians; 1628 (27%) responded. Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be female (65% vs 55%) and to be younger (mean [SD] age, 42.1 [12.6] vs 44.9 [12.7] years). The majority of respondents were physicians (951 [58%]), female (1023 [65%]), licensed to practice in 2000 or later (940 [61%]), and spent fewer than 40 hours per week in direct patient care (1083 [71%]). Most viewed open notes positively, agreeing they are a good idea (1182 participants [74%]); of 1314 clinicians who were aware that patients were reading their notes, 965 (74%) agreed that open notes were useful for engaging patients. In all, 798 clinicians (61%) would recommend the practice to colleagues. A total of 292 physicians (37%) reported spending more time on documentation, and many reported specific changes in the way they write their notes, the most frequent of which related to use of language that could be perceived as critical of the patient (422 respondents [58%]). Most physicians (1234 [78%]) favored being able to determine readily that their notes had been read by their patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey of clinicians in a wide range of specialties who had several years of experience offering their patients ready access to their notes, more than two-thirds supported this new practice. Even among subgroups of clinicians who were less enthusiastic, most endorsed the idea of sharing notes and believed the practice could be helpful for engaging patients more actively in their care.

Real-Time Access to Electronic Health Record via a Patient Portal: Is it Harmful? A Retrospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The rapid implementation of patient portals, through which patients can view their electronic health record, creates possibilities for information exchange and communication between patients and health care professionals. However, real-time disclosure of test results and clinical reports poses a source of concern.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to examine negative experiences resulting from real-time disclosure of medical information through a patient portal.

METHODS

Data were collected over a 2-year period in 4 datasets consisting of incidents reported by health care professionals, complaints of patients, patient issues at a portal helpdesk, and a survey among health care professionals. Incidents, complaints, issues, and answers on the survey were counted and analyzed through an iterative process of coding.

RESULTS

Within the chosen time frame of 2 years, on average, 7978 patients per month logged into the portal at least once. The amount of negative incidents and complaints was limited. A total of 6 incidents, 4 complaints, and 2506 issues at the helpdesk concerning the patient portal were reported, of which only 2, 1, and 3 cases of these respective databases concerned real-time disclosure of medical information through the patient portal. Moreover, 32 out of 216 health care professionals reported patients that had negative experiences with real-time disclosure. Most negative consequences concerned confused and anxious patients when confronted with unexpected or incomprehensible results.

CONCLUSIONS

Real-time access through a patient portal did not substantially result in negative consequences. The negative consequences that did occur can be mitigated by adequate preparation and instruction of patients concerning the various functionalities of the patient portal, real-time disclosure of test results in particular, and can also be managed through educating health care professionals about the patient portal and making adjustments in the daily practice of health care professionals.

Patients as diagnostic collaborators: sharing visit notes to promote accuracy and safety

Error resulting from missed, delayed, or wrong diagnoses is estimated to occur in 10–15% of ambulatory and inpatient encounters, leading to serious harm in around half of such cases. When it comes to conceptualizing diagnostic error, most research has focused on factors pertaining to: (a) physician cognition and (b) ergonomic or systems factors related to the physician’s working environment. A third factor – the role of patients in diagnostic processes – remains relatively under-investigated. Yet, as a growing number of researchers acknowledge, patients hold unique knowledge about themselves and their healthcare experience, and may be the most underutilized resource for mitigating diagnostic error. This opinion article examines recent findings from patient surveys about sharing visit notes with patients online. Drawing on these survey results, we suggest three ways in which sharing visit notes with patients might enhance diagnostic processes: (1) avoid delays and missed diagnoses by enhancing timely follow up of recommended tests, results, and referrals; (2) identify documentation errors that may undermine diagnostic accuracy; and (3) strengthen patient-clinician relationships thereby creating stronger bidirectional diagnostic partnerships. We also consider the potential pitfalls or unintended consequences of note transparency, and highlight areas in need of further research.

OpenNotes After 7 Years: Patient Experiences With Ongoing Access to Their Clinicians' Outpatient Visit Notes

Background

Following a 2010-2011 pilot intervention in which a limited sample of primary care doctors offered their patients secure Web-based portal access to their office visit notes, the participating sites expanded OpenNotes to nearly all clinicians in primary care, medical, and surgical specialty practices.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the ongoing experiences and perceptions of patients who read ambulatory visit notes written by a broad range of doctors, nurses, and other clinicians.

Methods

A total of 3 large US health systems in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania conducted a Web-based survey of adult patients who used portal accounts and had at least 1 visit note available in a recent 12-month period. The main outcome measures included patient-reported behaviors and their perceptions concerning benefits versus risks.

Results

Among 136,815 patients who received invitations, 21.68% (29,656/136,815) responded. Of the 28,782 patient respondents, 62.82% (18,081/28,782) were female, 72.90% (20,982/28,782) were aged 45 years or older, 76.94% (22,146/28,782) were white, and 14.30% (4115/28,782) reported fair or poor health. Among the 22,947 who reported reading 1 or more notes, 3 out of 4 reported reading them for 1 year or longer, half reported reading at least 4 notes, and 37.74% (8588/22,753) shared a note with someone else. Patients rated note reading as very important for helping take care of their health (16,354/22,520, 72.62%), feeling in control of their care (15,726/22,515, 69.85%), and remembering the plan of care (14,821/22,516, 65.82%). Few were very confused (737/22,304, 3.3%) or more worried (1078/22,303, 4.83%) after reading notes. About a third reported being encouraged by their clinicians to read notes and a third told their clinicians they had read them. Less educated, nonwhite, older, and Hispanic patients, and individuals who usually did not speak English at home, were those most likely to report major benefits from note reading. Nearly all respondents (22,593/22,947, 98.46%) thought Web-based access to visit notes a good idea, and 62.38% (13,427/21,525) rated this practice as very important for choosing a future provider.

Conclusions

In this first large-scale survey of patient experiences with a broad range of clinicians working in practices in which shared notes are well established, patients find note reading very important for their health management and share their notes frequently with others. Patients are rarely troubled by what they read, and those traditionally underserved in the United States report particular benefit. However, fewer than half of clinicians and patients actively address their shared notes during visits. As the practice continues to spread rapidly in the United States and internationally, our findings indicate that OpenNotes brings benefits to patients that largely outweigh the risks.