Patients Typing Their Own Visit Agendas Into an Electronic Medical Record: Pilot in a Safety-Net Clinic

Embedding Authorship Identity into a Portal-Based Agenda Setting Intervention to Support Older Adults and Care Partners

BACKGROUND

Patients, families, and clinicians increasingly communicate through patient portals. Due to potential for multiple authors, clinicians need to know who is communicating with them. OurNotes is a portal-based pre-visit agenda setting questionnaire. This study adapted OurNotes to include a self-identification question to help clinicians interpret information authored by nonpatients.

OBJECTIVES

To describe adapted OurNotes use and clinician feedback to inform broader implementation.

DESIGN

Evaluation of adapted OurNotes in a geriatric practice.

PARTICIPANTS

Older adults with a portal account and a clinic visit; eight clinicians were interviewed.

INTERVENTION

OurNotes adaptation to clarify whether the author is the patient, the patient with help, or a nonpatient.

APPROACH

Cross-sectional chart review of OurNotes completion, patient characteristics, and visit topics by author type. Clinician interviews explored experiences with OurNotes.

RESULTS

Out of 503 visits, 134 (26%) OurNotes questionnaires were completed. Most respondents (n = 92; 69%) identified as the patient, 18 (14%) identified as the patient with help, and 24 (17%) identified as someone other than the patient. On average, patients who authored their own OurNotes were younger (80.9 years) compared to patients who received assistance (85.8 years), or patients for whom someone else authored OurNotes (87.8 years) (p < 0.001). A diagnosis of cognitive impairment was present among 20% of patients who self-authored OurNotes vs. 79% of patients where someone else authored OurNotes (p < 0.001). Topics differed when OurNotes was authored by patients vs. nonpatients. Symptoms (52% patient vs. 83% nonpatient, p = 0.004), community resources (6% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), dementia (5% vs. 21%, p = 0.009), and care partner concerns (1% vs. 12%, p = 0.002) were more often mentioned by nonpatients. Clinicians valued the self-identification question for increasing transparency about who provided information.

CONCLUSIONS

A self-identification question can identify nonpatient authors of OurNotes. Future steps include evaluating whether transparency improves care quality, especially when care partners are involved.

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.

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.

Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions to coproduce diagnostic safety through OurDX: a previsit online engagement tool

OBJECTIVE

Patients and families are key partners in diagnosis, but methods to routinely engage them in diagnostic safety are lacking. Policy mandating patient access to electronic health information presents new opportunities. We tested a new online tool ("OurDX") that was codesigned with patients and families, to determine the types and frequencies of potential safety issues identified by patients/families with chronic health conditions and whether their contributions were integrated into the visit note.

METHODS

Patients/families at 2 US healthcare sites were invited to contribute, through an online previsit survey: (1) visit priorities, (2) recent medical history/symptoms, and (3) potential diagnostic concerns. Two physicians reviewed patient-reported diagnostic concerns to verify and categorize diagnostic safety opportunities (DSOs). We conducted a chart review to determine whether patient contributions were integrated into the note. We used descriptive statistics to report implementation outcomes, verification of DSOs, and chart review findings.

RESULTS

Participants completed OurDX reports in 7075 of 18 129 (39%) eligible pediatric subspecialty visits (site 1), and 460 of 706 (65%) eligible adult primary care visits (site 2). Among patients reporting diagnostic concerns, 63% were verified as probable DSOs. In total, probable DSOs were identified by 7.5% of pediatric and adult patients/families with underlying health conditions, respectively. The most common types of DSOs were patients/families not feeling heard; problems/delays with tests or referrals; and problems/delays with explanation or next steps. In chart review, most clinician notes included all or some patient/family priorities and patient-reported histories.

CONCLUSIONS

OurDX can help engage patients and families living with chronic health conditions in diagnosis. Participating patients/families identified DSOs and most of their OurDX contributions were included in the visit note.

Clinical Use of an Electronic Pre-Visit Questionnaire Soliciting Patient Visit Goals and Interim History: A Retrospective Comparison Between Safety-net and Non-Safety-net Clinics

Introduction/Objectives

We examined an initial step towards co-generation of clinic notes by inviting patients to complete a pre-visit questionnaire that could be inserted into clinic notes by providers and describe the experience in a safety-net and non-safety-net clinic.

Methods

We sent an electronic pre-visit questionnaire on visit goals and interim history to patients at a safety-net clinic and a non-safety-net clinic before clinic visits. We compared questionnaire utilization between clinics during a one-year period and performed a chart review of a sample of patients to examine demographics, content and usage of patient responses to the questionnaire.

Results

While use was low in both clinics, it was lower in the safety-net clinic (3%) compared to the non-safety-net clinic (10%). We reviewed a sample of respondents and found they were more likely to be White compared to the overall clinic populations ( p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-typed notes (word count and number of visit goals) between the safety-net and non-safety-net samples however, patients at the safety-net clinic were less likely to have all of their goals addressed within the PCP documentation, compared to the non-safety-net clinic.

Conclusions

Given potential benefits of this questionnaire as a communication tool, addressing barriers to use of technology among vulnerable patients is needed, including access to devices and internet, and support from caregivers or culturally concordant peer navigators.

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.

Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Patients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician's view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning.

METHOD

A multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet's AC1 and Cohen's kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61-0.8=good agreement and 0.81-1.00=excellent agreement.

RESULTS

The framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88).

CONCLUSIONS

The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.

Augmenting patient safety through participation by design - An assessment of dual monitors for patients in the outpatient clinic

BACKGROUND

Patients and physicians engaging together in the electronic health record (EHR) during clinical visits may provide opportunities to both improve patient understanding and reduce medical errors.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential impact of a patient EHR display intervention on patient quality and safety. We hypothesized that if patients had a dedicated display with an explicit invitation to follow clinicians in the EHR that this would identify several opportunities to engage patients in their care quality and safety.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Physician-patient outpatient encounters (24 patients and 8 physicians) were videotaped. Encounters took place in a hospital-based general internal medicine outpatient clinic where physicians and patients had their respective EHR monitors. Following the visits, each patient and physician was interviewed for 30 min to understand their perception of the mirrored-screen setting.

RESULTS

The following 7 themes were identified (a) curiosity, (b) opportunity to ask questions, (c) error identification, (d) control over medications, (e) awareness, (f) shared understanding & decision-making, (g) data privacy. These themes collectively comprised a conceptual model for how patient engagement in electronic health record use, through a dedicated second screen or an explicitly shared screen, relates to safety and quality opportunities. Therefore, the double EHR screen provides an explicit invitation for patients to join the process to influence safety.

CONCLUSION

Desired outcomes include real-time error identification and better-shared understanding and decision-making, leading to better downstream follow-through with care plans.

Perception versus reality: Does provider documentation behavior change when clinic notes are shared electronically with patients?

INTRODUCTION

Secure patient portals have improved patient access to information, including provider notes. Although there is evidence suggesting that electronic note sharing improves communication and care quality, some studies have reported provider concerns regarding note sharing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This mixed-methods single site study utilized survey questions from a previously published landmark study to assess provider perceptions of electronic note sharing as well as objective EHR data. Surveys were sent to 628 providers in 34 primary and specialty care clinics approximately 12 weeks after the implementation of phase 1 (April 1, 2018) and phase 2 (July 1, 2018). EHR data were extracted from three months pre- and three months post-implementation of note sharing to determine whether or not note authoring times were affected.

RESULTS

Nearly one-quarter (n = 150) of the responses sent to 628 providers were retained for analysis (23.9 % response rate). A majority (84.7 %) of respondents believed notes were useful vehicles for communication and 73.3 % agreed that making notes available to patients was a good idea. Additionally, 16.0 % of respondents (14.0 % for primary care and 17.0 % for specialists) believed they "spent more time writing/dictating/editing their notes." A comparison of pre-post note authoring time revealed the aggregated primary care median increased 0.14 min (7.93-8.07 min) while aggregated specialty care median was identical (11.6 min).

DISCUSSION

The EHR comparison of note authoring time pre-post did not reflect provider concerns identified in the survey regarding electronic note sharing.

The development of an epilepsy electronic patient portal: Facilitating both patient empowerment and remote clinician-patient interaction in a post-COVID-19 world

Objectives

The current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic stresses an urgency to accelerate much‐needed health service reform. Rapid and courageous changes being made to address the immediate impact of the pandemic are demonstrating that the means and technology to enable new models of health care exist. For example, innovations such as electronic patient portals (ePortal) can facilitate (a) radical reform of outpatient care; (b) cost containment in the economically constrained aftermath of the pandemic; (c) environmental sustainability by reduction of unnecessary journeys/transport. Herein, the development of Providing Individualised Services and Care in Epilepsy (PiSCES), an ePortal to the Irish National Epilepsy Electronic Patient Record, is demonstrated. This project, which pre‐dates the COVID‐19 crisis, aims to facilitate better patient‐ and family‐centered epilepsy care.

Methods

A combination of ethnographic research, document analysis, and joint application design sessions was used to elicit PiSCES requirements. From these, a specification of desired modules of functionality was established and guided the software development.

Results

PiSCES functional features include “My Epilepsy Care Summary,” “My Epilepsy Care Goals,” “My Epilepsy Clinic Letters,” “Help Us Measure Your Progress,” “Prepare For Your Clinic Visit,” “Information for Your Healthcare Provider.” The system provides people with epilepsy access to, and engages them as co‐authors of, their own medical record. It can promote improved patient‐clinician partnerships and facilitate patient self‐management.

Significance

In the aftermath of COVID‐19, it is highly unlikely that the healthcare sector will return to a “business as usual” way of delivering services. The pandemic is expected to accelerate adoption of innovations like PiSCES. It is therefore a catalyst for change that will deliver care that is more responsive to individual patient needs and preferences.

Factors Influencing Problem List Use in Electronic Health Records-Application of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology

BACKGROUND

Problem-oriented electronic health record (EHR) systems can help physicians to track a patient's status and progress, and organize clinical documentation, which could help improving quality of clinical data and enable data reuse. The problem list is central in a problem-oriented medical record. However, current problem lists remain incomplete because of the lack of end-user training and inaccurate content of underlying terminologies. This leads to modifications of diagnosis code descriptions and use of free-text notes, limiting reuse of data.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to investigate factors that influence acceptance and actual use of the problem list, and used these to propose recommendations, to increase the value of problem lists for (re)use.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with physicians, heads of medical departments, and data quality experts, who were invited through snowball sampling. The interviews were transcribed and coded. Comments were fitted in constructs of the validated framework unified theory of acceptance user technology (UTAUT), and were discussed in terms of facilitators and barriers.

RESULTS

In total, 24 interviews were conducted. We found large variability in attitudes toward problem list use. Barriers included uncertainty about the responsibility for maintaining the problem list and little perceived benefits. Facilitators included the (re)design of policies, improved (peer-to-peer) training to increase motivation, and positive peer feedback and monitoring. Motivation is best increased through sharing benefits relevant in the care process, such as providing overview, timely generation of discharge or referral letters, and reuse of data. Furthermore, content of the underlying terminology should be improved and the problem list should be better presented in the EHR system.

CONCLUSION

To let physicians accept and use the problem list, policies and guidelines should be redesigned, and prioritized by supervising staff. Additionally, peer-to-peer training on the benefits of using the problem list is needed.

How should electronic health records be designed? A cross-sectional study in patients with psoriasis

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) are promising tools for routine care. These applications might not only enhance the interaction between patient and physician but also support therapy management. This is crucial in complex and chronic conditions like psoriasis. However, EHRs can only unfold their full potential when being accepted by the users. Therefore, this study aims to analyse how EHRs should be designed for patients with psoriasis and to identify differences between patient subgroups.

METHODS

We developed a questionnaire on the acceptability of EHRs based on literature research and results from focus groups. Participants completed a paper-based or electronic version of the questionnaire. We recruited participants at an outpatient clinic as well as online via patient associations and a social media platform. We analysed data using descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses applying Chi-square and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The sample encompassed 187 patients with psoriasis. Data reveals that 84.4% of the participants can think of entering data into an EHR. Participants prefer entering data at home (72.2%) instead of entering data in the waiting room (44.9%) and using an own internet-ready device (laptop/computer: 62.6%; smartphone/tablet: 61.5%) instead of a provided device (46.0%). Altogether, 55.6% of participants would accept entering data on a monthly basis when this lasts between one and 10 minutes and further 27.8% would accept even longer lasting data entry. Data privacy is of great concern (e.g. patient should decide who has access to data: 96.7%). Subgroup analyses reveal differences with regard to age, educational level, burden due to psoriasis, number of internet activities, use of electronic questionnaires and mode of administration.

CONCLUSION

The high acceptance of entering data is favourable for the implementation of EHRs. The results suggest technical and structural recommendations: Differences between subgroups support the development of flexible EHRs encompassing a basic module, which is expandable with further add-ons, and compatible to different devices. Furthermore, involving patients by entering data into an EHR requires that physicians communicate open-mindedly with the patient and consider data throughout decision-making. Patients should remain owner of their own health data and decide about its processing.

Patient access to clinical notes in oncology: A mixed method analysis of oncologists' attitudes and linguistic characteristics towards notes

BACKGROUND

Providers have expressed concern about patient access to clinical notes. There is the possibility that providers may linguistically censor notes knowing that patients have access.

PURPOSE

Qualitative interviews and a pre- and post- linguistic analysis of the implementation of OpenNotes was performed to determine whether oncologists changed the content and style of their notes.

METHODS

Mixed methods were utilized, including 13 semi-structured interviews with oncologists and random effects modeling of over 500 clinical notes. The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program was used to evaluate notes for emotions, thinking styles, and social concerns.

RESULTS

No significant differences from pre- and post-implementation of OpenNotes was found. Thematic analysis revealed that oncologists were concerned that changing their notes would negatively impact multidisciplinary communication. However, oncologists acknowledged that notes could be more patient-friendly and may stimulate patient-provider communication.

CONCLUSIONS

Although oncologists were aware that patients could have access, they felt strongly about not changing the content of notes. A comparison between pre- and post-implementation confirmed this view and found that notes did not change.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Patient access to oncologist's notes may serve as an opportunity to reinforce important aspects of the consultation.

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics

Background

Patients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After‐Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety‐net settings.

Design

A mixed methods study

Setting and Participants

Patients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety‐net primary care clinics in Washington State.

Methods

Patients read their own most recent clinic note and After‐Visit Summary, then completed a brief survey followed by a focus group discussion (3 groups in a large general medicine teaching clinic and 1 in an HIV/AIDS clinic) about their perceptions of the clinic note and After‐Visit Summary.

Results

Twenty‐seven patients participated; 70% were male, 41% were Black, 48% were unemployed or disabled, 56% reported fair/poor health, and 37% had accessed the electronic patient portal. A majority of patients felt their note content was useful (89%); a minority reported that their notes were not accurate (19%), had too much medical jargon (29%), or were too long (26%). Themes identified from the discussions included reliance on the provider to explain confusing content; a desire for more rather than less detail; and perceived inaccuracies, particularly in heavily templated notes. In each focus group, one or more portal users were enthusiastically willing to teach other patients.

Conclusions

The majority of focus group participants at this safety‐net site had not accessed the electronic patient portal, but those who had were willing to promote the portal benefits and assist others. Patients identified specific opportunities to improve clinic notes and After‐Visit Summaries.