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

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.

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.

The emerging role of generative artificial intelligence in transplant medicine

Generative artificial intelligence (AI), a subset of machine learning that creates new content based on training data, has witnessed tremendous advances in recent years. Practical applications have been identified in health care in general, and there is significant opportunity in transplant medicine for generative AI to simplify tasks in research, medical education, and clinical practice. In addition, patients stand to benefit from patient education that is more readily provided by generative AI applications. This review aims to catalyze the development and adoption of generative AI in transplantation by introducing basic AI and generative AI concepts to the transplant clinician and summarizing its current and potential applications within the field. We provide an overview of applications to the clinician, researcher, educator, and patient. We also highlight the challenges involved in bringing these applications to the bedside and need for ongoing refinement of generative AI applications to sustainably augment the transplantation field.

Psychiatrists' perceptions of conditions and consequences associated with the implementation of open notes: qualitative investigation

OBJECTIVE

In a growing list of countries, patients are granted access to their clinical notes ("open notes") as part of their online record access. Especially in the field of mental health, open notes remain controversial with some clinicians perceiving open notes as a tool for improving therapeutic outcomes by increasing patient involvement, while others fear that patients might experience psychological distress and perceived stigmatization, particularly when reading clinicians' notes. More research is needed to optimize the benefits and mitigate the risks.

METHODS

Using a qualitative research design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists practicing in Germany, to explore what conditions they believe need to be in place to ensure successful implementation of open notes in psychiatric practice as well as expected subsequent changes to their workload and treatment outcomes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 psychiatrists; interviewees believed four key conditions needed to be in place prior to implementation of open notes including careful consideration of (1) diagnoses and symptom severity, (2) the availability of additional time for writing clinical notes and discussing them with patients, (3) available resources and system compatibility, and (4) legal and data protection aspects. As a result of introducing open notes, interviewees expected changes in documentation, treatment processes, and doctor-physician interaction. While open notes were expected to improve transparency and trust, participants anticipated negative unintended consequences including the risk of deteriorating therapeutic relationships due to note access-related misunderstandings and conflicts.

CONCLUSION

Psychiatrists practiced in Germany where open notes have not yet been established as part of the healthcare data infrastructure. Interviewees were supportive of open notes but had some reservations. They found open notes to be generally beneficial but anticipated effects to vary depending on patient characteristics. Clear guidelines for managing access, time constraints, usability, and privacy are crucial. Open notes were perceived to increase transparency and patient involvement but were also believed to raise issues of stigmatization and conflicts.

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

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

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

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

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.

Real-Time Electronic Patient Portal Use Among Emergency Department Patients

Importance

Patients with inequitable access to patient portals frequently present to emergency departments (EDs) for care. Little is known about portal use patterns among ED patients.

Objectives

To describe real-time patient portal usage trends among ED patients and compare demographic and clinical characteristics between portal users and nonusers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of 12 teaching and 24 academic-affiliated EDs from 8 health systems in California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington, patient portal access and usage data were evaluated for all ED patients 18 years or older between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022.

Exposure

Use of the patient portal during ED visit.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were the weekly proportions of ED patients who logged into the portal, viewed test results, and viewed clinical notes in real time. Pooled random-effects models were used to evaluate temporal trends and demographic and clinical characteristics associated with real-time portal use.

Results

The study included 1 280 924 unique patient encounters (53.5% female; 0.6% American Indian or Alaska Native, 3.7% Asian, 18.0% Black, 10.7% Hispanic, 0.4% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 66.5% White, 10.0% other race, and 4.0% with missing race or ethnicity; 91.2% English-speaking patients; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [19.2] years). During the study, 17.4% of patients logged into the portal while in the ED, whereas 14.1% viewed test results and 2.5% viewed clinical notes. The odds of accessing the portal (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.19-1.56), viewing test results (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.30-2.04), and viewing clinical notes (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.19-2.15) were higher at the end of the study vs the beginning. Patients with active portal accounts at ED arrival had a higher odds of logging into the portal (OR, 17.73; 95% CI, 9.37-33.56), viewing test results (OR, 18.50; 95% CI, 9.62-35.57), and viewing clinical notes (OR, 18.40; 95% CI, 10.31-32.86). Patients who were male, Black, or without commercial insurance had lower odds of logging into the portal, viewing results, and viewing clinical notes.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that real-time patient portal use during ED encounters has increased over time, but disparities exist in portal access that mirror trends in portal usage more generally. Given emergency medicine's role in caring for medically underserved patients, there are opportunities for EDs to enroll and train patients in using patient portals to promote engagement during and after their visits.

Biomedical text readability after hypernym substitution with fine-tuned large language models

The advent of patient access to complex medical information online has highlighted the need for simplification of biomedical text to improve patient understanding and engagement in taking ownership of their health. However, comprehension of biomedical text remains a difficult task due to the need for domain-specific expertise. We aimed to study the simplification of biomedical text via large language models (LLMs) commonly used for general natural language processing tasks involve text comprehension, summarization, generation, and prediction of new text from prompts. Specifically, we finetuned three variants of large language models to perform substitutions of complex words and word phrases in biomedical text with a related hypernym. The output of the text substitution process using LLMs was evaluated by comparing the pre- and post-substitution texts using four readability metrics and two measures of sentence complexity. A sample of 1,000 biomedical definitions in the National Library of Medicine's Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) was processed with three LLM approaches, and each showed an improvement in readability and sentence complexity after hypernym substitution. Readability scores were translated from a pre-processed collegiate reading level to a post-processed US high-school level. Comparison between the three LLMs showed that the GPT-J-6b approach had the best improvement in measures of sentence complexity. This study demonstrates the merit of hypernym substitution to improve readability of complex biomedical text for the public and highlights the use case for fine-tuning open-access large language models for biomedical natural language processing.

A Patient-Centered Documentation Skills Curriculum for Preclerkship Medical Students in an Open Notes Era

Introduction

New legislation allows patients (with permitted exceptions) to read their clinical notes, leading to both benefits and ethical dilemmas. Medical students need a robust curriculum to learn documentation skills within this challenging context. We aimed to teach note-writing skills through a patient-centered lens with special consideration for the impact on patients and providers. We developed this session for first-year medical students within their foundational clinical skills course to place bias-free language at the forefront of how they learn to construct a medical note.

Methods

One hundred seventy-three first-year medical and dental students participated in this curriculum. They completed an asynchronous presession module first, followed by a 2-hour synchronous workshop including a didactic, student-led discussion and sample patient note exercise. Students were subsequently responsible throughout the year for constructing patient-centered notes, graded by faculty with a newly developed rubric and checklist of best practices.

Results

On postworkshop surveys, learners reported increased preparedness in their ability to document in a patient-centered manner (presession M = 2.2, midyear M = 3.9, p < .001), as rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not prepared at all, 5 = very prepared), and also found this topic valuable to learn early in their training.

Discussion

This curriculum utilizes a multipart approach to prepare learners to employ clinical notes to communicate with patients and providers, with special attention to how patients and their care partners receive a note. Future directions include expanding the curriculum to higher levels of learning and validating the developed materials.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Shifting Mindsets: The Impact of a Patient Portal on Functioning and Recovery in a Mental Health Setting

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to understand whether higher use of a patient portal can have an impact on mental health functioning and recovery.

METHOD

A mixed methods approach was used for this study. In 2019-2021, patients with mental health diagnoses at outpatient clinics in an academic centre were invited to complete World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 12 (WHODAS-12) and Mental Health Recovery Measure surveys at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months after signing up for the portal. At the 3-month time point, patients were invited to a semistructured interview with a member of the team to contextualize the findings obtained from the surveys. Analytics data was also collected from the platform to understand usage patterns on the portal.

RESULTS

Overall, 113 participants were included in the analysis. There was no significant change in mental health functioning and recovery scores over the 6-month period. However, suboptimal usage was observed as 46% of participants did not complete any tasks within the portal. Thirty-five participants had low use of the portal (1-9 interactions) and 18 participants had high usage (10+ interactions). There were also no differences in mental health functioning and recovery scores between low and high users of the portal. Qualitative interviews highlighted many opportunities where the portal can support overall functioning and mental health recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Collectively, this study suggests that higher use of a portal had no impact, either positive or negative, on mental health outcomes. While it may offer convenience and improved patient satisfaction, adequate support is needed to fully enable these opportunities for patient care. As the type of interaction with the portal was not specifically addressed, future work should focus on looking at ways to support patient engagement and portal usage throughout their care journey.

People with diabetes who read their clinicians' visit notes: Behaviors and attitudes

OBJECTIVES

To understand behaviors and attitudes of adults with diabetes who read their clinicians' visit notes.

METHODS

By linking a large 2017 patient survey involving three institutions with administrative and portal use data, we identified patients with diabetes mellitus from outpatient records and examined reading behaviors related to eligible notes-initial, follow-up, history and physical, and progress notes. We analyzed patients' perceived benefits of reading notes.

RESULTS

2104 respondents had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and had read ≥1 note in the 12-month period. Patients had an average of 8.7 eligible notes available and read 59% of them. The strongest predictor of reading more notes was having more notes available; the specialties of the authoring clinicians were not correlated with note reading rates. Patients reported understanding notes by primary care clinicians and specialists equally well; more than 90% of patients reported understanding everything or almost everything in a self-selected note. Across visit types, 73-80% of patients reported that note reading was extremely important for taking care of their health.

DISCUSSION

People with diabetes want to read their clinicians' notes, are accessing them at high rates, and report understanding the notes and benefiting from reading them.

Discussions With End Users to Inform the Vision for a Shared Care Record in Ontario: Qualitative Interview Study

BACKGROUND

Improving the health outcomes of populations of individuals through population health management requires the use of electronic health records that can exchange real-time digital information using an accurate and complete shared care record that is accessible to health care providers, services, and patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to understand end users' (health care providers) experiences, attitudes, and insights using current electronic health records; their expectations of what is required to establish a shared care record; and how they anticipate adapting to the use of a shared care record in daily practice. This work is the result of a quality improvement initiative deemed not to require ethics approval according to the Western research ethics board checklist.

METHODS

Clinicians were contacted using voluntary response sampling and interviewed via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications) between June 2022 and July 2022. The participants were from various health care sectors and at various stages of career development.

RESULTS

Overall, adaptation to the use of a shared care record was viewed positively by health care providers, highlighting the benefits of a centralized, shared, and accessible location for real-time data, promoting patient continuity of care. The main concerns included the privacy, confidentiality, and security of the record along with patients' ability to interpret their own medical information found in a patient portal. The resources requested by end users included multifaceted ongoing training on the use of a shared care record.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides practical findings that will help emphasize factors that facilitate clinicians' practical use and process of adaptation to the use of a shared care record.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

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

Perception of Physicians' Notes Among Parents of Different Health Literacy Levels

OBJECTIVES

To explore the benefits and challenges of accessing physicians' notes during pediatric hospitalization across parents of different health literacy levels.

METHODS

For this secondary analysis, we used semi-structured interviews conducted with 28 parents on their impressions of having access to their child's care team notes on a bedside table. Three researchers used thematic analysis to develop a codebook, coded interview data, and identified themes. Parent interviews and respective themes were then dichotomized into proficient or limited health literacy groups and compared.

RESULTS

Nine themes were identified in this secondary analysis: 6 benefits and 3 challenges. All parents identified more benefits than challenges, including that the notes served as a recap of information and memory aid and increased autonomy, empowerment, and advocacy for their child. Both groups disliked receiving bad news in notes before face-to-face communication. Parents with proficient literacy reported that notes allowed them to check information accuracy, but that notes may not be as beneficial for parents with lower health literacy. Parents with limited literacy uniquely identified limited comprehension of medical terms but indicated that notes facilitated their understanding of their child's condition, increased their appreciation for their health care team, and decreased their anxiety, stress, and worry.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents with limited health literacy uniquely reported that notes improved their understanding of their child's care and decreased (rather than increased) worry. Reducing medical terminology may be one equitable way to increase note accessibility for parents across the health literacy spectrum.

'Safety is about partnership': Safety through the lens of patients and caregivers

INTRODUCTION

Creating safer care is a high priority across healthcare systems. Despite this, most systems tend to focus on mitigating past harm, not creating proactive solutions. Managers and staff identify safety threats often with little input from patients and their caregivers during their health encounters.

METHODS

This is a qualitative descriptive study utilizing focus groups and one-to-one interviews with patients and caregivers who were currently using (or had previously used) services in health systems across Canada. Data were analysed via inductive thematic analysis to understand existing and desired strategies to promote safer and better quality care from the perspectives of patients and caregivers.

FINDINGS

In our analysis, we identified three key themes (safety strategies) from patients' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences: Using Tools and Approaches for Engaging Patients and Caregivers in their Care; Having Accountability Processes and Mechanisms for Safe Care; and Enabling Patients and Caregivers Access to Information.

CONCLUSIONS

Safety is more than the absence of harm. Our findings outline a number of suggestions from patients and caregivers on how to make care safer, ranging from being valued on teams, participating as members of quality improvement tables, having access to health information, having access to an advocate to help make sense of information and having processes in place for disclosure and closure. Future work can further refine, implement and evaluate these strategies in practice.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS

An advisory group guided the research and was co-chaired by a patient partner. Members of the advisory group spanned patient and caregiver organizations and health sectors across Canada and included three patient partners and leaders who work closely with patients and caregivers in their day-to-day work. In the research itself, we engaged 28 patients and caregivers from across Canada to learn about their safety experiences and learn what safer care looks like from their perspectives.

Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England

OBJECTIVE

To describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health records.

DESIGN

Convenience sample, online survey.

PARTICIPANTS

400 registered GPs in England.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Investigators measured GPs' experiences and opinions about online record access (ORA), including patient care and their practice.

RESULTS

A total of 400 GPs from all regions of England responded. A minority (130, 33%) believed ORA was a good idea. Most GPs believed a majority of patients would worry more (364, 91%) or find their GP records more confusing than helpful (338, 85%). Most GPs believed a majority of patients would find significant errors in their records (240, 60%), would better remember their care plan (280, 70%) and feel more in control of their care (243, 60%). The majority believed they will/already spend more time addressing patients' questions outside of consultations (357, 89%), that consultations will/already take significantly longer (322, 81%) and that they will be/already are less candid in their documentation (289, 72%) after ORA. Nearly two-thirds of GPs believed ORA would increase their litigation (246, 62%).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to clinicians in other countries, GPs in our sample were sceptical of ORA, believing patients would worry more and find their records more confusing than helpful. Most GPs also believed the practice would exacerbate work burdens. However, the majority of GPs in this survey also agreed there were multiple benefits to patients having online access to their primary care health records. The findings of this survey also contribute to a growing body of contrastive research from countries where ORA is advanced, demonstrating clinicians are sceptical while studies indicate patients appear to derive multiple benefits.

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

Family Perception of OpenNotes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

 OpenNotes, or sharing of medical notes via a patient portal, has been studied extensively in the adult population, but less in pediatric populations, and even more rarely in inpatient pediatric or intensive care settings.

OBJECTIVES

 This study aimed to understand families' interaction with and perception of inpatient hospital notes shared via patient portal in a community Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU).

METHODS

 At the end of the NICU discharge education, completed in the patient portal before discharge, families were offered an anonymous survey on OpenNotes.

RESULTS

 Out of 446 NICU patients from March 16, 2022 to March 16, 2023, there were 59 respondents (13%). Race was primarily Asian (48%), and English was the predominant language (93%). Most families indicated that the notes were "very or somewhat easy to understand" (93%). Seventy-three percent of respondents felt much better about the doctor(s) after reading the notes, and 53% contacted the physicians about something in the notes. Six (16%) felt that OpenNotes were more confusing than helpful.

CONCLUSION

 To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study on NICU families' perceptions of OpenNotes, which indicated positive interactions with the doctors' daily progress notes and gave important suggestions for improvement.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Identifying the mechanisms of patient-centred communication in secure messages between clinicians and cancer patients

Objective

Identify how patients and clinicians incorporate patient-centered communication (PCC) within secure messaging.

Methods

A random sample of 199 secure messages from patient portal communication between patients and clinicians were collected and analyzed. Via manual annotation, the task of tagging target words/phrases in text, we identified five components of PCC: information giving, information seeking, emotional support, partnership, and shared decision-making. Textual analysis was also performed to understand the context of PCC expressions within messages.

Results

Information-giving was the predominant (n = 346, 68.1%) PCC category used in secure messaging, more than double of the other four PCC codes, information-seeking (n = 82, 16.1%), emotional support (n = 52, 10.2%), shared decision making (n = 5, 1.0%), combined. The textual analysis revealed that clinicians informed patients about appointment reminders and new protocols while patients reminded clinicians about upcoming procedures and outcomes of test results conducted by other clinicians. Although less common, patients expressed statements of concern, uncertainty, and fear; enabling clinicians to provide support.

Conclusion

Secure messaging is mainly used for exchanging information, but other aspects of PCC emerge using this channel of communication.

Innovation

Meaningful discussions can occur via secure messaging, and clinicians should be mindful of incorporating PCC when communicating with patients through secure messaging.

Co-Designing an Initiative to Increase Shared Access to Older Adults' Patient Portals: Stakeholder Engagement

BACKGROUND

The patient portal is a widely available secure digital platform offered by care delivery organizations that enables patients to communicate electronically with clinicians and manage their care. Many organizations allow patients to authorize family members or friends-"care partners"-to share access to patient portal accounts, thus enabling care partners to receive their own identity credentials. Shared access facilitates trilateral information exchange among patients, clinicians, and care partners; however, uptake and awareness of this functionality are limited.

OBJECTIVE

We partnered with 3 health care organizations to co-design an initiative that aimed to increase shared access registration and use and that can be implemented using existing patient portals.

METHODS

In 2020, we undertook a rigorous selection process to identify 3 geographically diverse health care organizations that had engaged medical informatics teams and clinical champions within service delivery lines caring for older adults. We prioritized selecting organizations that serve racially and socioeconomically diverse populations and possess sophisticated reporting capabilities, a stable patient portal platform, a sufficient volume of older adult patients, and active patient and family advisory councils. Along with patients and care partners, clinicians, staff, and other stakeholders, the study team co-designed an initiative to increase the uptake of shared access guided by either an iterative, human-centered design process or rapid assessment procedures of stakeholders' inputs.

RESULTS

Between February 2020 and April 2022, 73 stakeholder engagements were conducted with patients and care partners, clinicians and clinic staff, medical informatics teams, marketing and communications staff, and administrators, as well as with funders and thought leaders. We collected insights regarding (1) barriers to awareness, registration, and use of shared access; (2) features of consumer-facing educational materials to address identified barriers; (3) features of clinician- and staff-facing materials to address identified barriers; and (4) approaches to fit the initiative into current workflows. Using these inputs iteratively via a human-centered design process, we produced brochures and posters, co-designed organization-specific web pages detailing shared access registration processes, and developed clinician and staff talking points about shared access and staff tip sheets that outline shared access registration steps. Educational materials emphasized the slogan "People remember less than half of what their doctors say," which was selected from 9 candidate alternatives as resonating best with the full range of the initiative's stakeholders. The materials were accompanied by implementation toolkits specifying and reinforcing workflows involving both in-person and telehealth visits.

CONCLUSIONS

Meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement allowed our deliberate, iterative, and human-centered co-design aimed at increasing the use of shared access. Our initiative has been launched as a part of a 12-month demonstration that will include quantitative and qualitative analysis of registration and use of shared access. Educational materials are publicly available at Coalition for Care Partners.

The NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey: Cross-Sectional Study of National Patient Portal Users in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia

BACKGROUND

Although many surveys have been conducted on patients accessing their own health records in recent years, there is a limited amount of nationwide cross-country data available on patients' views and preferences. To address this gap, an international survey of patient users was conducted in the Nordic eHealth project, NORDeHEALTH.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate the sociodemographic characteristics and experiences of patients who accessed their electronic health records (EHRs) through national patient portals in Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Estonia.

METHODS

A cross-sectional web-based survey was distributed using the national online health portals. The target participants were patients who accessed the national patient portals at the start of 2022 and who were aged ≥15 years. The survey included a mixture of close-ended and free-text questions about participant sociodemographics, usability experience, experiences with health care and the EHR, reasons for reading health records online, experience with errors, omissions and offense, opinions about security and privacy, and the usefulness of portal functions. In this paper, we summarized the data on participant demographics, past experience with health care, and the patient portal through descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total, 29,334 users completed the survey, of which 9503 (32.40%) were from Norway, 13,008 (44.35%) from Sweden, 4713 (16.07%) from Finland, and 2104 (7.17%) from Estonia. National samples were comparable according to reported gender, with about two-thirds identifying as women (19,904/29,302, 67.93%). Age distributions were similar across the countries, but Finland had older users while Estonia had younger users. The highest attained education and presence of health care education varied among the national samples. In all 4 countries, patients most commonly rated their health as "fair" (11,279/29,302, 38.48%). In Estonia, participants were more often inclined to rate their health positively, whereas Norway and Sweden had the highest proportion of negative health ratings. Across the whole sample, most patients received some care in the last 2 years (25,318/29,254, 86.55%). Mental health care was more common (6214/29,254, 21.24%) than oncological care (3664/29,254, 12.52%). Overall, most patients had accessed their health record "2 to 9 times" (11,546/29,306, 39.4%), with the most frequent users residing in Sweden, where about one-third of patients accessed it "more than 20 times" (4571/13,008, 35.14%).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first large-scale international survey to compare patient users' sociodemographics and experiences with accessing their EHRs. Although the countries are in close geographic proximity and demonstrate similar advancements in giving their residents online records access, patient users in this survey differed. We will continue to investigate patients' experiences and opinions about national patient-accessible EHRs through focused analyses of the national and combined data sets from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey.

Identifying contributors to disparities in patient access of online medical records: examining the role of clinician encouragement

Objective

The aim of this study was to understand the influence of clinician encouragement and sociodemographic factors on whether patients access online electronic medical records (EMR).

Materials and Methods

We analyzed 3279 responses from the Health Information National Trends Survey 5 cycle 4 survey, a cross-sectional, nationally representative survey administered by the National Cancer Institute. Frequencies and weighted proportions were calculated to compare clinical encouragement and access to their online EMR. Using multivariate logistic regression, we identified factors associated with online EMR use and clinician encouragement.

Results

In 2020, an estimated 42% of US adults accessed their online EMR and 51% were encouraged by clinicians to access their online EMR. In multivariate regression, respondents who accessed EMR were more likely to have received clinician encouragement (odds ratio [OR], 10.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7-14.0), college education or higher (OR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.4-2.7), history of cancer (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.0-2.3), and history of chronic disease (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.7-3.2). Male and Hispanic respondents were less likely to have accessed EMR than female and non-Hispanic White respondents (OR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.8, and OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8, respectively). Respondents receiving encouragement from clinicians were more likely to be female (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.3), have college education (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.0), history of cancer (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.3-2.5), and greater income levels (OR, 1.8-3.6).

Discussion

Clinician encouragement of patient EMR use is strongly associated with patients accessing EMR, and there are disparities in who receives clinician encouragement related to education, income, sex, and ethnicity.

Conclusions

Clinicians have an important role to ensure that all patients benefit from online EMR use.

Methodological innovations to strengthen evidence-based serious illness communication

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

A growing population of those affected by serious illness, prognostic uncertainty, patient diversity, and healthcare digitalization pose challenges for the future of serious illness communication. Yet, there is paucity of evidence to support serious illness communication behaviors among clinicians. Herein, we propose three methodological innovations to advance the basic science of serious illness communication.

RESULTS

First, advanced computation techniques - e.g. machine-learning techniques and natural language processing - offer the possibility to measure the characteristics and complex patterns of audible serious illness communication in large datasets. Second, immersive technologies - e.g., virtual- and augmented reality - allow for experimentally manipulating and testing the effects of specific communication strategies, and interactional and environmental aspects of serious illness communication. Third, digital-health technologies - e.g., shared notes and videoconferences - can be used to unobtrusively observe and manipulate communication, and compare in-person to digitally-mediated communication elements and effects. Immersive and digital health technologies allow integration of physiological measurement (e.g. synchrony or gaze) that may advance our understanding of patient experience.

CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

New technologies and measurement approaches, while imperfect, will help advance our understanding of the epidemiology and quality of serious illness communication in an evolving healthcare environment.

Clinical ethics consultation documentation in the era of open notes

BACKGROUND

In 2021, federal rules from the 21st Century Cures Act mandated most clinical notes be made available in real-time, online, and free of charge to patients, a practice often referred to as "open notes." This legislation was passed to support medical information transparency and reinforce trust in the clinician-patient relationship; however, it created additional complexities in that relationship and raises questions of what should be included in notes intended to be read by both clinicians and patients.

MAIN BODY

Even prior to open notes, how an ethics consultant should document a clinical ethics consultation was widely debated as there can be competing interests, differing moral values, and disagreement about pertinent medical information in any given encounter. Patients can now access documentation of these discussions through online portals which broach sensitive topics related to end-of-life care, autonomy, religious/cultural conflict, veracity, confidentiality, and many others. Clinical ethics consultation notes must be ethically robust, accurate, and helpful for healthcare workers and ethics committee members, but now also sensitive to the needs of patients and family members who can read them in real-time.

CONCLUSION

We explore implications of open notes for ethics consultation, review clinical ethics consultation documentation styles, and offer recommendations for documentation in this new era.

"I don't think it should take you three days to tell me my baby is dead." A case of fetal demise: unintended consequences of immediate release of information

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) information blocking regulations mandate timely patient access to their electronic health information. In most healthcare systems, this technically requires immediate electronic release of test results and clinical notes directly to patients. Patients could potentially be distressed by receiving upsetting results through an electronic portal rather than from a clinician. We present a case from 2018, several years prior to the implementation of the Cures Act. A patient was notified of fetal demise detected by ultrasound through her electronic health record (EHR) patient portal before her clinician received the result. We discuss the patient's ensuing complaint and healthcare system response. This unusual and dramatic case of fetal demise is relevant today because it underscores the importance of involving a patient and family advisory council in decision-making. It also highlights the value of "anticipatory guidance" as a routine clinical practice in this era of immediate access to test results.

A Natural Language Processing Model to Identify Confidential Content in Adolescent Clinical Notes

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act mandates the immediate, electronic release of health information to patients. However, in the case of adolescents, special consideration is required to ensure that confidentiality is maintained. The detection of confidential content in clinical notes may support operational efforts to preserve adolescent confidentiality while implementing information sharing.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine if a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm can identify confidential content in adolescent clinical progress notes.

METHODS

A total of 1,200 outpatient adolescent progress notes written between 2016 and 2019 were manually annotated to identify confidential content. Labeled sentences from this corpus were featurized and used to train a two-part logistic regression model, which provides both sentence-level and note-level probability estimates that a given text contains confidential content. This model was prospectively validated on a set of 240 progress notes written in May 2022. It was subsequently deployed in a pilot intervention to augment an ongoing operational effort to identify confidential content in progress notes. Note-level probability estimates were used to triage notes for review and sentence-level probability estimates were used to highlight high-risk portions of those notes to aid the manual reviewer.

RESULTS

The prevalence of notes containing confidential content was 21% (255/1,200) and 22% (53/240) in the train/test and validation cohorts, respectively. The ensemble logistic regression model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic of 90 and 88% in the test and validation cohorts, respectively. Its use in a pilot intervention identified outlier documentation practices and demonstrated efficiency gains over completely manual note review.

CONCLUSION

An NLP algorithm can identify confidential content in progress notes with high accuracy. Its human-in-the-loop deployment in clinical operations augmented an ongoing operational effort to identify confidential content in adolescent progress notes. These findings suggest NLP may be used to support efforts to preserve adolescent confidentiality in the wake of the information blocking mandate.

Patient Perspectives on Clinic Note Transparency Within Dermatology

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

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Exposures

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

The Prevalence of Confidential Content in Adolescent Progress Notes Prior to the 21st Century Cures Act Information Blocking Mandate

BACKGROUND

The 21st Century Cures Act information blocking final rule mandated the immediate and electronic release of health care data in 2020. There is anecdotal concern that a significant amount of information is documented in notes that would breach adolescent confidentiality if released electronically to a guardian.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of confidential information, based on California laws, within progress notes for adolescent patients that would be released electronically and assess differences in prevalence across patient demographics.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective chart review of outpatient progress notes written between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, at a large suburban academic pediatric network. Notes were labeled into one of three confidential domains by five expert reviewers trained on a rubric defining confidential information for adolescents derived from California state law. Participants included a random sampling of eligible patients aged 12 to 17 years old at the time of note creation. Secondary analysis included prevalence of confidentiality across age, gender, language spoken, and patient race.

RESULTS

Of 1,200 manually reviewed notes, 255 notes (21.3%) (95% confidence interval: 19-24%) contained confidential information. There was a similar distribution among gender and age and a majority of English speaking (83.9%) and white or Caucasian patients (41.2%) in the cohort. Confidential information was more likely to be found in notes for females (p < 0.05) as well as for English-speaking patients (p < 0.05). Older patients had a higher probability of notes containing confidential information (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that there is a significant risk to breach adolescent confidentiality if historical progress notes are released electronically to proxies without further review or redaction. With increased sharing of health care data, there is a need to protect the privacy of the adolescents and prevent potential breaches of confidentiality.

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.

Laboratory Results Release to Patients under the 21st Century Cures Act: The Eight Stakeholders Who Should Care

A major aim of the 21st Century Cures Act is to support patients' access to their electronic health data and to prevent information blocking practices by health care organizations and health information technology developers. Prior to the Cures Act, significant variation existed in patient access to laboratory test results, key pieces of health data which enable timely self-management and engagement in care. Although many health care systems began releasing test results immediately through patient portals because of the Cures Act, implementation remains challenging due to variations in state regulations around electronic results release, local interpretations of allowable exceptions to Cures information blocking, concerns about privacy of sensitive laboratory results, and technological limitations. This paper outlines the eight stakeholder groups involved in implementation of electronic laboratory result release to patients and describes recommendations for these groups to consider in achieving the Cures Act goals to support a patient's access to their health information and control of their health care.

Parent Perspectives on Sharing Pediatric Hospitalization Clinical Notes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Federal guidelines mandate that hospitals provide patients and caregivers with free, online access to their physician's clinical notes. This study sought to identify parent perceptions of the benefits and challenges of real-time note access during their child's hospitalization and strategies to optimize note-sharing at the bedside.

METHODS

This qualitative study was conducted with parents of children aged <12 years admitted to a pediatric hospitalist service in April 2019. Parents were given access to their child's admission and daily progress notes on a bedside tablet (iPad), and interviewed upon discharge. In-depth, 60-minute interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Two researchers developed and refined a codebook and coded data inductively and deductively with validation by a third researcher. Thematic analysis was used to identify emergent themes.

RESULTS

The 28 interviewed parents described 6 benefits of having note access, which: provided a recap and improved their knowledge about their child's care plan, enhanced communication, facilitated empowerment, increased autonomy, and incited positive emotions. Potential challenges included that notes: caused confusion, hindered communication with the health care team, highlighted problems with note content, and could incite negative emotions. Parents recommended 4 strategies to support sharing: provide preemptive communication about expectations, optimize the note release process, consider parent-friendly note template modifications, and offer informational resources for parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide a framework for operationalizing note-sharing with parents during hospitalization. These results have important implications for hospitals working to comply with federal regulations and researchers assessing the effects of increased information transparency in the inpatient setting.

[Patient's Clinical User Experience in Gastroenterology]

As clinical practices change to involve patients more actively and patient feedback becomes integrated into ongoing measures of quality, patients themselves, along with their families and friends, could play a creative part in crafting solutions to improve patient's experience. We could convene focus groups of patients to help examine varied aspects of our practice, ranging from the flow through our offices to the way we communicate. They could work with us, helping us make choices and set priorities. Incorporating both patients' perceptions and suggestions for change can address clinically significant aspects of the patient experience, foster the involvement of patients in their care, and help assess and improve the quality of the care we deliver. The electronic medical record and secure patient portals increasingly provide a powerful opportunity to actively promote patient involvement. Improving of patient's experience can help doctors draw closer to their patients and restore and strengthen public trust. It can both improve the quality of our care and add to the joy of being a doctor. Our purpose is to improve patients' treatment results, and through this, to feel rewarding as a doctor as a professional and to continue working as a doctor. To this end, improving the doctor-patient relationship through improving patient experience can be a key factor.

The 21st Century Cures Act and psychosocial electronic documentation in solid organ transplantation: Potential harms and practical strategies

Recent health system initiatives and government legislation have enhanced electronic health information (EHI) sharing in the healthcare technology environment. These measures are favorably viewed by most patients and clinicians. The 21st Century Cures Act, whose final rules went into effect in the United States in 2021, prohibits information blocking practices except in the case of potential harm. The definition of such harm, particularly regarding psychosocial EHI, is unclear and little guidance has been published. No articles address the matter in solid organ transplantation (SOT) despite the crucial role of psychosocial data in organ allocation. This article describes the implications of patient and family access to psychosocial EHI in SOT, discusses potential mechanisms of harm, and suggests practical communication strategies relevant to clinicians of all disciplines to promote high quality care and favorable interactions with patients and families.

Patient Identification of Diagnostic Safety Blindspots and Participation in "Good Catches" Through Shared Visit Notes

Policy Points Patients and families can identify clinically relevant errors, including "blindspots"-safety hazards that are difficult for clinicians or organizations to see. Health information transparency, including patient access to electronic visit notes, now federally mandated in the US and the subject of policy debate worldwide, creates a new opportunity to engage patients in diagnostic safety. However, not all patients access notes. Patient identification of blindspots in their notes underscores the need to systematically and equitably engage willing patients in safety, promote patient "good catches," and establish routine systems for patient feedback to help avoid preventable diagnostic errors and delays.

CONTEXT

Policy shifts toward health information transparency provide a new opportunity for patients to contribute to diagnostic safety. We investigated whether sharing clinical notes with patients can support identification of "diagnostic safety blindspots"-potentially consequential breakdowns in the diagnostic process that may be difficult for clinical staff to observe.

METHOD

We used mixed methods to analyze patient-reported ambulatory documentation errors among 22,889 patients at three US health care centers who read ≥ 1 visit note(s). We identified blindspots by tailoring a previously established taxonomy. We used multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with blindspot identification.

FINDINGS

774 patients reported a total of 962 blindspots in 4 categories: (1) diagnostic misalignments (n = 421, 43.8%), including inaccurate symptoms or histories and failures or delay in diagnosis; (2) errors of omission (38.1%) including missed main concerns or next steps, and failure to listen to patients; (3) problems occurring outside visits (14.3%) such as tests, referrals, or appointment access; and (4) multiple low-level problems (3.7%) cascading into diagnostic breakdowns. Many patients acted on the blindspots they identified, resulting in "good catches" that may prevent potential negative consequences. Older, female, sicker, unemployed or disabled patients, or those who work in health care were more likely to identify a blindspot. Individuals reporting less formal education; those self-identifying as Black, Asian, other, or multiple races; and participants who deferred decision-making to providers were less likely to report a blindspot.

CONCLUSION

Patients who read notes have unique insight about potential errors in their medical records that could impact diagnostic reasoning but may not be known to clinicians-underscoring a critical role for patients in diagnostic safety and organizational learning. From a policy standpoint, organizations should encourage patient review of visit notes, build systems to track patient-reported blindspots, and promote equity in note access and blindspot reporting.

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

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

A roadmap to reduce information inequities in disability with digital health and natural language processing

People with disabilities disproportionately experience negative health outcomes. Purposeful analysis of information on all aspects of the experience of disability across individuals and populations can guide interventions to reduce health inequities in care and outcomes. Such an analysis requires more holistic information on individual function, precursors and predictors, and environmental and personal factors than is systematically collected in current practice. We identify 3 key information barriers to more equitable information: (1) a lack of information on contextual factors that affect a person's experience of function; (2) underemphasis of the patient's voice, perspective, and goals in the electronic health record; and (3) a lack of standardized locations in the electronic health record to record observations of function and context. Through analysis of rehabilitation data, we have identified ways to mitigate these barriers through the development of digital health technologies to better capture and analyze information about the experience of function. We propose 3 directions for future research on using digital health technologies, particularly natural language processing (NLP), to facilitate capturing a more holistic picture of a patient's unique experience: (1) analyzing existing information on function in free text documentation; (2) developing new NLP-driven methods to collect information on contextual factors; and (3) collecting and analyzing patient-reported descriptions of personal perceptions and goals. Multidisciplinary collaboration between rehabilitation experts and data scientists to advance these research directions will yield practical technologies to help reduce inequities and improve care for all populations.