New U.S. Law Mandates Access to Clinical Notes: Implications for Patients and Clinicians

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.

Roles of Health Literacy in Relation to Social Determinants of Health and Recommendations for Informatics-Based Interventions: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Health literacy (HL) is the ability to make informed decisions using health information. As health data and information availability increase due to online clinic notes and patient portals, it is important to understand how HL relates to social determinants of health (SDoH) and the place of informatics in mitigating disparities.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review aims to examine the role of HL in interactions with SDoH and to identify feasible HL-based interventions that address low patient understanding of health information to improve clinic note-sharing efficacy.

METHODS

The review examined 2 databases, Scopus and PubMed, for English-language articles relating to HL and SDoH. We conducted a quantitative analysis of study characteristics and qualitative synthesis to determine the roles of HL and interventions.

RESULTS

The results (n=43) were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively for study characteristics, the role of HL, and interventions. Most articles (n=23) noted that HL was a result of SDoH, but other articles noted that it could also be a mediator for SdoH (n=6) or a modifiable SdoH (n=14) itself.

CONCLUSIONS

The multivariable nature of HL indicates that it could form the basis for many interventions to combat low patient understandability, including 4 interventions using informatics-based solutions. HL is a crucial, multidimensional skill in supporting patient understanding of health materials. Designing interventions aimed at improving HL or addressing poor HL in patients can help increase comprehension of health information, including the information contained in clinic notes shared with patients.

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.

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.

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.

How to Reduce Stigma and Bias in Clinical Communication: a Narrative Review

A growing body of literature demonstrates that healthcare providers use stigmatizing language when speaking and writing about patients. In April 2021, the 21st Century Cures Act compelled clinicians to make medical records open to patients. We believe that this is a unique moment to provide clinicians with guidance on how to avoid stigma and bias in our language as part of larger efforts to promote health equity. We performed an exhaustive scoping review of the gray and academic literature on stigmatizing medical language. We used thematic analysis and concept mapping to organize the findings into core principles for use in clinical practice. We compiled a list of terms to avoid and seven strategies to promote non-judgmental health record keeping: (1) use person-first language, (2) eliminate pejorative terms, (3) make communication inclusive, (4) avoid labels, (5) stop weaponizing quotes, (6) avoid blaming patients, and (7) abandon the practice of leading with social identifiers. While we offer guidance clinicians can use to promote equity through language on an individual level, health inequities are structural and demand simultaneous systems and policy change. By improving our language, we can disrupt the harmful narratives that allow health disparities to persist.

The Healthcare Journey of Women With Advanced Gynecological Cancer From Diagnosis Through Terminal Illness: Qualitative Analysis of Progress Note Data

OBJECTIVE

To examine women's journeys with gynecologic cancer from before diagnosis through death and identify elements of their healthcare experience that warrant improvement.

METHODS

This exploratory study used longitudinal progress notes data from a multispecialty practice in Northern California. The sample included women with stage IV gynecological cancer diagnosed after 2011 and who died before 2018. Available progress notes from prior to diagnosis to death were qualitatively analyzed.

RESULTS

We identified 32 women, (median age 61 years) with mostly uterine (n=17) and ovarian (n=9) cancers and median survival of 9.2 months (min:2.9 and max:47.5). Sixteen (50%) received outpatient palliative care and 18 (56%) received hospice care. The analysis found wide variation in documentation about communication about diagnosis, prognosis, goals of care, stopping treatment, and starting hospice care. Challenges included escalating/severe symptoms, repeated urgent care/emergency department/hospital encounters, and lack of or late access to palliative and hospice care. Notes also illustrated how patient background and goals influenced care trajectory and communication. Documentation styles varied substantially, with palliative care notes more consistently documenting conversations about goals of care and psychosocial needs.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of longitudinal illness experience of women with advanced gynecological cancer suggests that clinicians may want to (1) prioritize earlier discussion about goals of care; (2) provide supplemental support to patients with higher needs, possibly through palliative care or navigation; and (3) write notes to enhance patient understanding now that patients may access all notes.

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.

Democratizing epilepsy care: Utility and usability of an electronic patient portal

OBJECTIVES

Electronic patient portals (ePortals) can facilitate greater healthcare democratization by providing patients and/or their authorized care partners with secure access to their medical records when and where needed. Such democratization can promote effective healthcare provider-patient partnerships, shared decision-making, and greater patient engagement in managing their health condition. This study examined the usefulness of providing individualized services and care in epilepsy (PiSCES), an epilepsy ePortal, as an enabler of more democratized epilepsy care.

METHODS

Seventy-two individuals with epilepsy and 18 care partners were invited to report on their experience of interacting via PiSCES with clinical documents (epilepsy care summary record; epilepsy clinic letters) authored about them by healthcare providers. The OpenNotes reporting tool was adapted to capture participant experience.

RESULTS

Twenty-five percent of invited patients and 44% of invited care partners reported on interacting with their epilepsy care summary; 14% of patients and 67% of care partners invited reported on their epilepsy clinic letters. Participant testimonials illustrate the value of PiSCES in: promoting autonomy, aiding memory, developing the knowledgeable patient, and enhancing healthcare partnerships. Ninety-six percent and 100% of respondents, respectively, reported understanding their epilepsy care summary and epilepsy clinic letter; 77% said the summary described their epilepsy history to date; 96% indicated that the letter provided an accurate description of their clinical encounter; 92% and 96%, respectively, valued access to their summary record and clinic letters; 77% of summary record and 73% clinic letter respondents reported learning something about their epilepsy or the healthcare service via PiSCES. Illustrating their potential patient and care partner safety role, 42% respondents identified inaccuracies in their clinical documents which were subsequently resolved by a clinician.

SIGNIFICANCE

In the post-digital world highly customized on-demand products and services have come to be expected. Similarly, in epilepsy care, technologies such as PiSCES can enable more personalized, transparent, and engaging services.

Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice

In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians ('open notes'). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients' access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.

Preparing Patients and Clinicians for Open Notes in Mental Health: Qualitative Inquiry of International Experts

BACKGROUND

In a growing number of countries worldwide, clinicians are sharing mental health notes, including psychiatry and psychotherapy notes, with patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to solicit the views of experts on provider policies and patient and clinician training or guidance in relation to open notes in mental health care.

METHODS

In August 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of international experts on the practice of sharing mental health notes. Experts were identified as informaticians, clinicians, chief medical information officers, patients, and patient advocates who have extensive research knowledge about or experience of providing access to or having access to mental health notes. This study undertook a qualitative descriptive analysis of experts' written responses and opinions (comments) to open-ended questions on training clinicians, patient guidance, and suggested policy regulations.

RESULTS

A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded. We identified four major themes related to opening mental health notes to patients: the need for clarity about provider policies on exemptions, providing patients with basic information about open notes, clinician training in writing mental health notes, and managing patient-clinician disagreement about mental health notes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides timely information on policy and training recommendations derived from a wide range of international experts on how to prepare clinicians and patients for open notes in mental health. The results of this study point to the need for further refinement of exemption policies in relation to sharing mental health notes, guidance for patients, and curricular changes for students and clinicians as well as improvements aimed at enhancing patient and clinician-friendly portal design.

Patient Access to Mental Health Notes: Motivating Evidence-Informed Ethical Guidelines

ABSTRACT

In the last decade, many health organizations have embarked on a revolution in clinical communication. Using electronic devices, patients can now gain rapid access to their online clinical records. Legally, patients in many countries already have the right to obtain copies of their health records; however, the practice known as "open notes" is different. Via secure online health portals, patients are now able to access their test results, lists of medications, and the very words that clinicians write about them. Open notes are growing with most patients in the Nordic countries already offered access to their full electronic record. From April 2021, a new federal ruling in the United States mandates-with few exemptions-that providers offer patients access to their online notes (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-02224.pdf#page=99). Against these policy changes, only limited attention has been paid to the ethical question about whether patients with mental health conditions should access their notes, as mentioned in the articles by Strudwick, Yeung, and Gratzer (Front Psychiatry 10:917, 2019) and Blease, O'Neill, Walker, Hägglund, and Torous (Lancet Psychiatry 7:924-925, 2020). In this article, our goal is to motivate further inquiry into opening mental health notes to patients, particularly among persons with serious mental illness and those accessing psychological treatments. Using biomedical ethical principles to frame our discussion, we identify key empirical questions that must be pursued to inform ethical practice guidelines.