Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

Evaluation of adapted OurNotes in a geriatric practice.

PARTICIPANTS

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

INTERVENTION

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

APPROACH

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: a case of persistent dysphagia and patient partnership

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic excellence underscores the patient-centered diagnosis and patient engagement in the diagnostic process. In contrast to a patient-centered diagnosis, a doctor-centered diagnosis with a lack of patient engagement may inhibit the diagnostic process due to the lack of responsibility, disrupted information, and increased effect of cognitive biases, particularly in a situation where multiple physicians are involved. In this paper, we suggest a promising idea to enhance patient engagement in the diagnostic process by using written information by a patient about their perspective and experience, which can fill the gaps needed for diagnosis that doctors cannot find alone.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 38-year-old woman developed chest pain, which gradually worsened during the following two years. For two years, she was evaluated in multiple departments; however, no definitive diagnosis was made, and her condition did not improve. During this evaluation, she searched her symptoms and image findings online. She reached a possible diagnosis of 'esophageal achalasia.' Still, she could not tell her concerns to any physicians because she felt that her concerns were not correctly recognized, although she showed her notes that her symptoms were recorded. She finally consulted the department of internal medicine, where her notes and previous test results were thoroughly reviewed. The final diagnosis of esophageal achalasia was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors must organize an environment where patients can freely express their thoughts, emotions, and ideas regarding their diagnosis. Cogenerating visit notes using patient input through written communication can be a promising idea to facilitate patient engagement in the diagnostic process.

The last word: An analysis of power dynamics in clinical notes documenting against-medical-advice discharges

Against Medical Advice (AMA) discharges pose significant challenges to the healthcare system, straining patient-clinician relationships while contributing to avoidable morbidity and mortality. Furthermore, though these discharges culminate in patients' departure from hospitals, their effects reverberate long after, propagated by clinician notes stored in patients' medical records. These notes capture exceptionally fraught interactions between patients and providers, describing the circumstances surrounding breakdowns in clinical relationships. Additionally, they represent just one side of complex, contentious social interactions, for in describing AMA discharges, clinician notewriters quite literally have the last word. For these reasons, notes documenting AMA discharges provide insight into the ways in which clinicians conceptualize, characterize, and propagate power differentials in the contemporary healthcare system. Here, we present a qualitative thematic analysis of 185 notes documenting AMA discharges from a large urban US medical center, interpreting note dynamics through three sociological models of power analysis: (i) the distributive model of power promulgated by Max Weber, (ii) the collectivist power model characterized by Talcott Parsons and Hannah Arendt, and (iii) structural interpretations of power developed by Michel Foucault. We argue that in documenting AMA discharges, clinicians appear to conceive of their relationship with patients in almost exclusively distributive terms, which in turn contributes to an adversarial dynamic whereby both patients and clinicians ultimately suffer disempowerment. We furthermore argue that by facilitating clinicians' recognition of power's collectivist and structural dimensions, we may help transform breakdowns in patient-clinician relationships into opportunities for collaboration.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Leveraging an Electronic Health Record Patient Portal to Help Patients Formulate Their Health Care Goals: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Pilot Interventions

BACKGROUND

Persons with multiple chronic conditions face complex medical regimens and clinicians may not focus on what matters most to these patients who vary widely in their health priorities. Patient Priorities Care is a facilitator-led process designed to identify patients' priorities and align decision-making and care, but the need for a facilitator has limited its widespread adoption.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study are to design and test mechanisms for patients to complete a self-directed process for identifying priorities and providing their priorities to clinicians.

METHODS

The study involved patients of at least 65 years of age at 2 family medicine practices with 5 physicians each. We first tested 2 versions of an interactive website and asked patients to bring their results to their visit. We then tested an Epic previsit questionnaire derived from the website's questions and included standard previsit materials. We completed postintervention phone interviews and an online survey with participating patients and collected informal feedback and conducted a focus group with participating physicians.

RESULTS

In the test of the first website version, 17.3% (35/202) of invited patients went to the website, 11.4% (23/202) completed all of the questions, 2.5% (5/202) brought results to their visits, and the median session time was 43.0 (IQR 28.0) minutes. Patients expressed confusion about bringing results to the visit. After clarifying that issue in the second version, 15.1% (32/212) of patients went to the website, 14.6% (31/212) completed the questions, 1.9% (4/212) brought results to the visit, and the median session time was 35.0 (IQR 35.0) minutes. In the test of the Epic questionnaire, 26.4% (198/750) of patients completed the questionnaire before at least 1 visit, and the median completion time was 14.0 (IQR 23.0) minutes. The 8 main questions were answered 62.9% (129/205) to 95.6% (196/205) of the time. Patients who completed questionnaires were younger than those who did not (72.3 vs 76.1 years) and were more likely to complete at least 1 of their other assigned questionnaires (99.5%, 197/198) than those who did not (10.3%, 57/552). A total of 140 of 198 (70.7%) patients responded to a survey, and 86 remembered completing the questionnaire; 78 (90.7%) did not remember having difficulty answering the questions and 57 (68.7%) agreed or somewhat agreed that it helped them and their clinicians to understand their priorities. Doctors noted that the sickest patients did not complete the questionnaire and that the discussion provided a good segue into end-of-life care.

CONCLUSIONS

Embedding questionnaires assaying patient priorities into patient portals holds promise for expanding access to priorities-concordant care.

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.

Shared Access to Adults' Patient Portals: A Secret Shopper Exercise

BACKGROUND

 Millions of Americans manage their health care with the help of a trusted individual. Shared access to a patient's online patient portal is one tool that can assist their care partner(s) in gaining access to the patient's health information and allow for easy exchange with the patient's care team. Shared access provides care partners with a validated and secure method for accessing the patient's portal account using their own login credentials. Shared access provides extra privacy protection and control to the patient, who designates which individuals can view their record. It also reduces confusion for the care team when interacting with the care partner via the portal. Shared access is underutilized among adult patients' care partners.

OBJECTIVES

 Investigate the process of granting or receiving shared access at multiple health care organizations in the United States to learn about barriers and facilitators experienced by patients and care partners.

METHODS

 The Shared Access Learning Collaborative undertook a "Secret Shopper" exercise. Participants attempted to give or gain shared access to another adult's portal account. After each attempt they completed a 14-question survey with a mix of open- and closed-ended questions.

RESULTS

 Eighteen participants attempted to grant or receive shared access a total of 24 times. Fifteen attempts were successful. Barriers to success included requiring paper forms with signatures, lack of knowledgeable staff, lack of access to technical support, and difficult-to-navigate technology. Facilitators included easy-to-navigate online processes and accessible technical help. Participants who were successful in gaining shared access reported feeling more informed and able to engage in shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

 The outcomes of our secret shopper exercise underscore the importance of collaboration aimed at learning from diverse encounters and disseminating the best practices. This is essential to address technical, informational, and organizational obstacles that may impede the widespread and accessible adoption of shared access.

Care Partner Perspectives on the Use of a Patient Portal Intervention to Promote Care Partner Identification in Dementia Care

Care partners are crucial to supporting the complex health needs of older adults with dementia, but they are not systematically identified in care delivery. As part of a real-world implementation project in geriatric primary care, we adapted a portal-based agenda setting intervention, OurNotes, by incorporating items to help care partners self-identify. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with care partners (N = 15) who completed the adapted OurNotes to explore their perceptions of the tool (usability, benefits, and challenges) and recommendations for refinement. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Benefits included enhancing care partners' preparedness for the visit and opening a direct channel to express concerns about patients' cognition and memory loss to clinicians. Challenges pertained to clinician responsiveness; recommendations focused on enabling the submitted OurNotes responses to be edited and updated by multiple care partners. Such refinements may help to maximize the impact of adapted OurNotes' and potential for future implementation and dissemination.

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.

Care partners and consumer health information technology: A framework to guide systems-level initiatives in support of digital health equity

Introduction

Consumer-oriented health information technologies (CHIT) such as the patient portal have a growing role in care delivery redesign initiatives such as the Learning Health System. Care partners commonly navigate CHIT demands alongside persons with complex health and social needs, but their role is not well specified.

Methods

We assemble evidence and concepts from the literature describing interpersonal communication, relational coordination theory, and systems-thinking to develop an integrative framework describing the care partner's role in applied CHIT innovations. Our framework describes pathways through which systematic engagement of the care partner affects longitudinal work processes and multi-level outcomes relevant to Learning Health Systems.

Results

Our framework is grounded in relational coordination, an emerging theory for understanding the dynamics of coordinating work that emphasizes role-based relationships and communication, and the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model. Cross-cutting work systems geared toward explicit and purposeful support of the care partner role through CHIT may advance work processes by promoting frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication, reinforced by shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect between patients, care partners, and care team. We further contend that systematic engagement of the care partner in longitudinal work processes exerts beneficial effects on care delivery experiences and efficiencies at both individual and organizational levels. We discuss the utility of our framework through the lens of an illustrative case study involving patient portal-mediated pre-visit agenda setting.

Conclusions

Our framework can be used to guide applied embedded CHIT interventions that support the care partner role and bring value to Learning Health Systems through advancing digital health equity, improving user experiences, and driving efficiencies through improved coordination within complex work systems.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Deep Work of Doctoring-Prioritizing Relationships in Medicine

This essay discusses how the deep work of doctoring leveraged with technology can bring us close to the quadruple aim of better care, better health, lower cost, and fulfilling work.

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.

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.

The Voice of the Patient and the Electronic Health Record

The patient's voice, which we define as the words the patient uses found in notes and messages and other sources, and their preferences for care and its outcomes, is too small a part of the electronic health record (EHR). To address this shortcoming will require innovation, research, funding, perhaps architectural changes to commercial EHRs, and that we address barriers that have resulted in this state, including clinician burden and financial drivers for care. Advantages to greater patient voice may accrue to many groups of EHR users and to patients themselves. For clinicians, the patient's voice, including symptoms, is invaluable in identifying new serious illness that cannot be detected by screening tests, and as an aid to accurate diagnosis. Informaticians benefit from greater patient voice in the EHR because it provides clues not found elsewhere that aid diagnostic decision support, predictive analytics, and machine learning. Patients benefit when their treatment priorities and care outcomes considered in treatment decisions. What patient voice there is in the EHR today can be found in locations not usually used by researchers. Increasing the patient voice needs be accomplished in equitable ways available to people with less access to technology and whose primary language is not well supported by EHR tools and portals. Use of direct quotations, while carrying potential for harm, permits the voice to be recorded unfiltered. If you are a researcher or innovator, collaborate with patient groups and clinicians to create new ways to capture the patient voice, and to leverage it for good.

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

Introduction/Objectives

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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