Mental Health Care Professionals' Appraisal of Patients' Use of Web-Based Access to Their Electronic Health Record: Qualitative Study

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.

Development of Recommendations for the Digital Sharing of Notes With Adolescents in Mental Health Care: Delphi Study

Background

In many countries, health care professionals are legally obliged to share information from electronic health records with patients. However, concerns have been raised regarding the sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care, and health care professionals have called for recommendations to guide this practice.

Objective

The aim was to reach a consensus among authors of scientific papers on recommendations for health care professionals' digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care and to investigate whether staff at child and adolescent specialist mental health care clinics agreed with the recommendations.

Methods

A Delphi study was conducted with authors of scientific papers to reach a consensus on recommendations. The process of making the recommendations involved three steps. First, scientific papers meeting the eligibility criteria were identified through a PubMed search where the references were screened. Second, the results from the included papers were coded and transformed into recommendations in an iterative process. Third, the authors of the included papers were asked to provide feedback and consider their agreement with each of the suggested recommendations in two rounds. After the Delphi process, a cross-sectional study was conducted among staff at specialist child and adolescent mental health care clinics to assess whether they agreed with the recommendations that reached a consensus.

Results

Of the 84 invited authors, 27 responded. A consensus was reached on 17 recommendations on areas related to digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care. The recommendations considered how to introduce digital access to notes, write notes, and support health care professionals, and when to withhold notes. Of the 41 staff members at child and adolescent specialist mental health care clinics, 60% or more agreed with the 17 recommendations. No consensus was reached regarding the age at which adolescents should receive digital access to their notes and the timing of digitally sharing notes with parents.

Conclusions

A total of 17 recommendations related to key aspects of health care professionals' digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care achieved consensus. Health care professionals can use these recommendations to guide their practice of sharing notes with adolescents in mental health care. However, the effects and experiences of following these recommendations should be tested in clinical practice.

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.

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.

Pre-implementation perceptions of clinicians regarding a patient portal in inpatient addictions settings: A qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Patient portals have been implemented in many organizations to support patient engagement and empowerment. However, their use in inpatient mental health and addiction settings is relatively new and has not been extensively studied. To address this gap, this study explored clinician perspectives of implementing a patient portal in inpatient addiction settings.

METHODS

The study followed qualitative descriptive methodology and used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide the research. Interviews were conducted with clinicians working in an inpatient addictions service at a large mental health and addictions teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Data analysis was performed using directed content analysis and the CFIR domains.

RESULTS

Twelve clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants included prescribers (such as physicians and nurse practitioners), registered nurses, allied health clinicians, and leadership. Participants had positive attitudes toward the patient portal, believing it would benefit patients and support consistency in healthcare. However, they also expressed reservations about its relevance and value during short inpatient admissions. Clinicians perceived the patient portal as compatible with existing workflows, enhancing patient empowerment and facilitating access to medical documentation. Concerns were raised about potential negative impacts on therapeutic rapport, particularly if patients disagreed with or were upset by the contents of their notes. Adaptations to the portal, such as improving documentation templates and providing detailed medication information, were suggested. Participants also highlighted advantages of the portal, including secure communication and access to laboratory results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians generally had positive attitudes toward implementing a patient portal. However, concerns about maintaining therapeutic rapport and the relevance of information to patients were identified, and adaptations were suggested to improve the utility of a portal in the context of short inpatient stays. The findings provide insights into clinician perspectives and can inform the implementation of patient portals in inpatient addiction settings.

Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Previous research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups.

METHODS

Our analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square.

RESULTS

Of the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were "very important," but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Views on patient portal use for adolescents in mental health care - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Digitalization of health care has opened up for new ways to involve and engage patients. With this, increased attention has been put on digital patient portals. There exists some research on patient portals for adolescent patients in general and for adults in mental health care. However, no studies on patient portals for adolescents in mental health care have been identified in a recent review. The aim was therefore to explore the views on using patient portals for adolescents in mental health care among persons involved in and/or being affected by the introduction of a patient portal.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using individual semi-structured interviews with 14 persons who were healthcare providers in child and adolescent mental health care, young representatives from the user panel, or persons affiliated with an EHR-project introducing a patient portal. The main questions addressed their views on introducing patient portals for adolescents in mental health care and how patient portals and access to clinical notes can affect them and their treatment.

RESULTS

The findings were categorised into four main themes; "Does access to a patient portal help or harm adolescents?", "Who decides access?", "Mostly a political goal" and "Need for support and competency". Informants mentioned situations in which both adolescents' and parents' access to a patient portal could help adolescents in mental health care, but also where it could potentially harm their treatment and threaten confidentiality. Most informants thought that healthcare providers should have the autonomy to determine which information should be shared with whom, but also requested guidelines to ensure equal practice and support in difficult situations. Some perceived patient portals as the result of a political decision, rather than healthcare providers´ wishes, while others described it as a necessary development towards democratization.

CONCLUSION

The informants' views varied from thinking that a patient portal could support adolescents in mental health care, to worrying that it could be detrimental to the treatment. Informants emphasized that the management should facilitate training and support for healthcare providers in using patient portals and telehealth.

Patients' choices regarding online access to laboratory, radiology and pathology test results on a hospital patient portal

The disclosure of online test results (i.e., laboratory, radiology and pathology results) on patient portals can vary from immediate disclosure (in real-time) via a delay of up to 28 days to non-disclosure. Although a few studies explored patient opinions regarding test results release, we have no insight into actual patients' preferences. To address this, we allowed patients to register their choices on a hospital patient portal. Our research question was: When do patients want their test results to be disclosed on the patient portal and what are the reasons for these choices? We used a mixed methods sequential explanatory design that included 1) patient choices on preferred time delay to test result disclosure on the patient portal for different medical specialties (N = 4592) and 2) semi-structured interviews with patients who changed their mind on their initial choice (N = 7). For laboratory (blood and urine) results, 3530 (76.9%) patients chose a delay of 1 day and 912 (19.9%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. For radiology and pathology results 4352 (94.8%) patients chose a delay of 7 days. 43 patients changed their mind about when they wanted to receive their results. By interviewing seven patients (16%) from this group we learned that some participants did not remember why they made changes. Four participants wanted a shorter delay to achieve transparency in health-related information and communication; to have time to process bad results; for reassurance; to prepare for a medical consultation; monitoring and acting on deviating results to prevent worsening of their disease; and to share results with their general practitioner. Three participants extended their chosen delay to avoid the disappointment about the content and anxiety of receiving incomprehensible information. Our study indicates that most patients prefer transparency in health-related information and want their test results to be disclosed as soon as possible.

Sharing Clinical Notes and Electronic Health Records With People Affected by Mental Health Conditions: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic health records (EHRs) are increasingly implemented internationally, whereas digital sharing of EHRs with service users (SUs) is a relatively new practice. Studies of patient-accessible EHRs (PAEHRs)-often referred to as open notes-have revealed promising results within general medicine settings. However, studies carried out in mental health care (MHC) settings highlight several ethical and practical challenges that require further exploration.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to map available evidence on PAEHRs in MHC. We seek to relate findings with research from other health contexts, to compare different stakeholders' perspectives, expectations, actual experiences with PAEHRs, and identify potential research gaps.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was performed using 6 electronic databases. Studies that focused on the digital sharing of clinical notes or EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions up to September 2021 were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Extension for Scoping Reviews guided narrative synthesis and reporting of findings.

RESULTS

Of the 1034 papers screened, 31 were included in this review. The studies used mostly qualitative methods or surveys and were predominantly published after 2018 in the United States. PAEHRs were examined in outpatient (n=29) and inpatient settings (n=11), and a third of all research was conducted in Veterans Affairs Mental Health. Narrative synthesis allowed the integration of findings according to the different stakeholders. First, SUs reported mainly positive experiences with PAEHRs, such as increased trust in their clinician, health literacy, and empowerment. Negative experiences were related to inaccurate notes, disrespectful language use, or uncovering of undiscussed diagnoses. Second, for health care professionals, concerns outweigh the benefits of sharing EHRs, including an increased clinical burden owing to more documentation efforts and possible harm triggered by reading the notes. Third, care partners gained a better understanding of their family members' mental problems and were able to better support them when they had access to their EHR. Finally, policy stakeholders and experts addressed ethical challenges and recommended the development of guidelines and trainings to better prepare both clinicians and SUs on how to write and read notes.

CONCLUSIONS

PAEHRs in MHC may strengthen user involvement, patients' autonomy, and shift medical treatment to a coproduced process. Acceptance issues among health care professionals align with the findings from general health settings. However, the corpus of evidence on digital sharing of EHRs with people affected by mental health conditions is limited. Above all, further research is needed to examine the clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and implementation of this sociotechnical intervention.