Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes

Background

Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes.

Objective

This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention.

Methods

Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements.

Results

Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits.

Conclusions

OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Words Matter: What Do Patients Find Judgmental or Offensive in Outpatient Notes?

BACKGROUND

Sharing outpatient notes with patients may bring clinically important benefits, but notes may sometimes cause patients to feel judged or offended, and thereby reduce trust.

OBJECTIVE

As part of a larger survey examining the effects of open notes, we sought to understand how many patients feel judged or offended due to something they read in outpatient notes, and why.

DESIGN

We analyzed responses from a large Internet survey of adult patients who used secure patient portals and had at least 1 visit note available in a 12-month period at 2 large academic medical systems in Boston and Seattle, and in a rural integrated health system in Pennsylvania.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult ambulatory patients with portal accounts in health systems that offered open notes for up to 7 years.

APPROACH

(1) Quantitative analysis of 2 dichotomous questions, and (2) qualitative thematic analysis of free-text responses on what patients found judgmental or offensive.

KEY RESULTS

Among 22,959 patient respondents who had read at least one note and answered the 2 questions, 2,411 (10.5%) reported feeling judged and/or offended by something they read in their note(s). Patients who reported poor health, unemployment, or inability to work were more likely to feel judged or offended. Among the 2,411 patients who felt judged and/or offended, 2,137 (84.5%) wrote about what prompted their feelings. Three thematic domains emerged: (1) errors and surprises, (2) labeling, and (3) disrespect.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 10 respondents reported feeling judged/offended by something they read in an outpatient note due to the perception that it contained errors, surprises, labeling, or evidence of disrespect. The content and tone may be particularly important to patients in poor health. Enhanced clinician awareness of the patient perspective may promote an improved medical lexicon, reduce the transmission of bias to other clinicians, and reinforce healing relationships.

Six countries, six individuals: resourceful patients navigating medical records in Australia, Canada, Chile, Japan, Sweden and the USA

In the absence of international standards, widely differing attitudes and laws, medical and social cultures strongly influence whether and how patients may access their medical records in various settings of care. Reviewing records, including the notes clinicians write, can help shape how people participate in their own care. Aided at times by new technologies, individual patients and care partners are repurposing existing tools and designing innovative, often 'low-tech' ways to collect, sort and interpret their own health information. To illustrate diverse approaches that individuals may take, six individuals from six nations offer anecdotes demonstrating how they are learning to collect, assess and benefit from their personal health information.

Sharing clinical notes, and placebo and nocebo effects: Can documentation affect patient health?

This paper connects findings from the field of placebo studies with research into patients' interactions with their clinician's visit notes, housed in their electronic health records. We propose specific hypotheses about how features of clinicians' written notes might trigger mechanisms of placebo and nocebo effects to elicit positive or adverse health effects among patients. Bridging placebo studies with (a) survey data assaying patient and clinician experiences with portals and (b) randomized controlled trials provides preliminary support for our hypotheses. We conclude with actionable proposals for testing our understanding of the health effects of access to visit notes.

Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes

Importance

As health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies.

Objective

To assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this survey study, a total of 136 815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020.

Exposures

Access to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors.

Results

Of 136 815 patients who received survey invitations, 29 656 (21.7%) responded and 22 889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ≥4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

The Views and Experiences of Clinicians Sharing Medical Record Notes With Patients

IMPORTANCE

The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires that patients be given electronic access to all the information in their electronic medical records. The regulations for implementation of this law give patients far easier access to information about their care, including the notes their clinicians write.

OBJECTIVE

To assess clinicians' views and experiences with sharing clinical notes (open notes) with patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Web-based survey study of physicians, advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, and therapists at 3 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; and rural Pennsylvania where notes have been shared across all outpatient specialties for at least 4 years. Participants were clinicians in hospital-based offices and community practices who had written at least 1 note opened by a patient in the year prior to the survey, which was administered from May 21, 2018, to August 31, 2018.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of sharing clinical notes with patients.

RESULTS

Invitations were sent to 6064 clinicians; 1628 (27%) responded. Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be female (65% vs 55%) and to be younger (mean [SD] age, 42.1 [12.6] vs 44.9 [12.7] years). The majority of respondents were physicians (951 [58%]), female (1023 [65%]), licensed to practice in 2000 or later (940 [61%]), and spent fewer than 40 hours per week in direct patient care (1083 [71%]). Most viewed open notes positively, agreeing they are a good idea (1182 participants [74%]); of 1314 clinicians who were aware that patients were reading their notes, 965 (74%) agreed that open notes were useful for engaging patients. In all, 798 clinicians (61%) would recommend the practice to colleagues. A total of 292 physicians (37%) reported spending more time on documentation, and many reported specific changes in the way they write their notes, the most frequent of which related to use of language that could be perceived as critical of the patient (422 respondents [58%]). Most physicians (1234 [78%]) favored being able to determine readily that their notes had been read by their patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this survey of clinicians in a wide range of specialties who had several years of experience offering their patients ready access to their notes, more than two-thirds supported this new practice. Even among subgroups of clinicians who were less enthusiastic, most endorsed the idea of sharing notes and believed the practice could be helpful for engaging patients more actively in their care.

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

Background

Following a 2010-2011 pilot intervention in which a limited sample of primary care doctors offered their patients secure Web-based portal access to their office visit notes, the participating sites expanded OpenNotes to nearly all clinicians in primary care, medical, and surgical specialty practices.

Objective

The aim of this study was to examine the ongoing experiences and perceptions of patients who read ambulatory visit notes written by a broad range of doctors, nurses, and other clinicians.

Methods

A total of 3 large US health systems in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania conducted a Web-based survey of adult patients who used portal accounts and had at least 1 visit note available in a recent 12-month period. The main outcome measures included patient-reported behaviors and their perceptions concerning benefits versus risks.

Results

Among 136,815 patients who received invitations, 21.68% (29,656/136,815) responded. Of the 28,782 patient respondents, 62.82% (18,081/28,782) were female, 72.90% (20,982/28,782) were aged 45 years or older, 76.94% (22,146/28,782) were white, and 14.30% (4115/28,782) reported fair or poor health. Among the 22,947 who reported reading 1 or more notes, 3 out of 4 reported reading them for 1 year or longer, half reported reading at least 4 notes, and 37.74% (8588/22,753) shared a note with someone else. Patients rated note reading as very important for helping take care of their health (16,354/22,520, 72.62%), feeling in control of their care (15,726/22,515, 69.85%), and remembering the plan of care (14,821/22,516, 65.82%). Few were very confused (737/22,304, 3.3%) or more worried (1078/22,303, 4.83%) after reading notes. About a third reported being encouraged by their clinicians to read notes and a third told their clinicians they had read them. Less educated, nonwhite, older, and Hispanic patients, and individuals who usually did not speak English at home, were those most likely to report major benefits from note reading. Nearly all respondents (22,593/22,947, 98.46%) thought Web-based access to visit notes a good idea, and 62.38% (13,427/21,525) rated this practice as very important for choosing a future provider.

Conclusions

In this first large-scale survey of patient experiences with a broad range of clinicians working in practices in which shared notes are well established, patients find note reading very important for their health management and share their notes frequently with others. Patients are rarely troubled by what they read, and those traditionally underserved in the United States report particular benefit. However, fewer than half of clinicians and patients actively address their shared notes during visits. As the practice continues to spread rapidly in the United States and internationally, our findings indicate that OpenNotes brings benefits to patients that largely outweigh the risks.

Inviting patients and care partners to read doctors' notes: OpenNotes and shared access to electronic medical records

We examined the acceptability and effects of delivering doctors' visit notes electronically (via OpenNotes) to patients and care partners with authorized access to patients' electronic medical records. Adult patients and care partners at Geisinger Health System were surveyed at baseline and after 12 months of exposure to OpenNotes. Reporting on care partner access to OpenNotes, patients and care partners stated that they had better agreement about patient treatment plans and more productive discussions about their care. At follow-up, patients were more confident in their ability to manage their health, felt better prepared for office visits, and reported understanding their care better than at baseline. Care partners were more likely to access and use patient portal functionality and reported improved communication with patients' providers at follow-up. Our findings suggest that offering patients and care partners access to doctors' notes is acceptable and improves communication and patients' confidence in managing their care.

When doctors share visit notes with patients: a study of patient and doctor perceptions of documentation errors, safety opportunities and the patient-doctor relationship

BACKGROUND

Patient advocates and safety experts encourage adoption of transparent health records, but sceptics worry that shared notes may offend patients, erode trust or promote defensive medicine. As electronic health records disseminate, such disparate views fuel policy debates about risks and benefits of sharing visit notes with patients through portals.

METHODS

Presurveys and postsurveys from 99 volunteer doctors at three US sites who participated in OpenNotes and postsurveys from 4592 patients who read at least one note and submitted a survey.

RESULTS

Patients read notes to be better informed and because they were curious; about a third read them to check accuracy. In total, 7% (331) of patients reported contacting their doctor's office about their note. Of these, 29% perceived an error, and 85% were satisfied with its resolution. Nearly all patients reported feeling better (37%) or the same (62%) about their doctor. Patients who were older (>63), male, non-white, had fair/poor self-reported health or had less formal education were more likely to report feeling better about their doctor. Among doctors, 26% anticipated documentation errors, and 44% thought patients would disagree with notes. After a year, 53% believed patient satisfaction increased, and 51% thought patients trusted them more. None reported ordering more tests or referrals.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite concerns about errors, offending language or defensive practice, transparent notes overall did not harm the patient-doctor relationship. Rather, doctors and patients perceived relational benefits. Traditionally more vulnerable populations-non-white, those with poorer self-reported health and those with fewer years of formal education-may be particularly likely to feel better about their doctor after reading their notes. Further informing debate about OpenNotes, the findings suggest transparent records may improve patient satisfaction, trust and safety.

A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships

BACKGROUND

OpenNotes, a national movement inviting patients to read their clinicians' notes online, may enhance safety through patient-reported documentation errors.

OBJECTIVE

To test an OpenNotes patient reporting tool focused on safety concerns.

METHODS

We invited 6225 patients through a patient portal to provide note feedback in a quality improvement pilot between August 2014 and 2015. A link at the end of the note led to a 9-question survey. Patient Relations personnel vetted responses, shared safety concerns with providers and documented whether changes were made.

RESULTS

2736/6225(44%) of patients read notes; among these, 1 in 12 patients used the tool, submitting 260 reports. Nearly all (96%) respondents reported understanding the note. Patients and care partners documented potential safety concerns in 23% of reports; 2% did not understand the care plan and 21% reported possible mistakes, including medications, existing health problems, something important missing from the note or current symptoms. Among these, 64% were definite or possible safety concerns on clinician review, and 57% of cases confirmed with patients resulted in a change to the record or care. The feedback tool exceeded the reporting rate of our ambulatory online clinician adverse event reporting system several-fold. After a year, 99% of patients and care partners found the tool valuable, 97% wanted it to continue, 98% reported unchanged or improved relationships with their clinician, and none of the providers in the small pilot reported worsening workflow or relationships with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and care partners reported potential safety concerns in about one-quarter of reports, often resulting in a change to the record or care. Early data from an OpenNotes patient reporting tool may help engage patients as safety partners without apparent negative consequences for clinician workflow or patient-clinician relationships.

Patients learning to read their doctors' notes: the importance of reminders

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether patients invited to review their clinicians' notes continue to access them and to assess the impact of reminders on whether patients continued to view notes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We followed OpenNotes trial participants for 2 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Electronic invitations alerting patients to signed notes stopped at GHS after year 1, creating a natural experiment to assess the impact of reminders. We used generalized linear models to measure whether notes were viewed within 30 days of availability.

RESULTS

We identified 14 360 patients (49 271 visits); mean age 52.2; 57.8% female. In year 1, patients viewed 57.5% of their notes, and their interest in viewing notes persisted over time. In year 2, BIDMC patients viewed notes with similar frequency. In contrast, GHS patients viewed notes far less frequently, a change starting when invitations ceased (RR 0.29 [0.26-0.32]) and persisting to the end of the study (RR 0.20 [0.17-0.23]). A subanalysis of BIDMC patients revealed that black and other/multiracial patients also continued to view notes, although they were overall less likely to view notes compared with whites (RR 0.75 [0.67-0.83] and 0.93 [0.89-0.98], respectively).

DISCUSSION

As millions of patients nationwide increasingly gain access to clinicians' notes, explicit email invitations to review notes may be important for fostering patient engagement and patient-doctor communication.

CONCLUSION

Note viewing persists when accompanied by email alerts, but may decline substantially in their absence. Non-white patients at BIDMC viewed notes less frequently than whites, although their interest also persisted.

Engaging patients through open notes: an evaluation using mixed methods

OBJECTIVES

(A) To gain insights into the experiences of patients invited to view their doctors' visit notes, with a focus on those who review multiple notes; (B) to examine the relationships among fully transparent electronic medical records and quality of care, the patient-doctor relationship, patient engagement, self-care, self-management skills and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

Mixed methods qualitative study: analyses of survey data, including content analysis of free-text answers, and quantitative-descriptive measures combined with semistructured individual interviews, patient activation measures, and member checks.

SETTING

Greater Boston, USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients cared for by primary care physicians (PCPs) at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who had electronic access to their PCP visit notes. Among those submitting surveys, 576 free-text answers were identified and analysed (414 from female patients, 162 from male patients; 23-88 years). In addition, 13 patients (9 female, 4 male; 58-87 years) were interviewed.

RESULTS

Patient experiences indicate improved understanding (of health information), better relationships (with doctors), better quality (adherence and compliance; keeping track) and improved self-care (patient-centredness, empowerment). Patients want more doctors to offer access to their notes, and some wish to contribute to their generation. Those patients with repeated experience reviewing notes express fewer concerns and more perceived benefits.

CONCLUSIONS

As the use of fully transparent medical records spreads, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of possible benefits or harms, and to characterise target populations that may require varying modes of delivery. Patient desires for expansion of this practice extend to specialty care and settings beyond the physician's office. Patients are also interested in becoming involved actively in the generation of their medical records. The OpenNotes movement may increase patient activation and engagement in important ways.

Sharing Physician Notes Through an Electronic Portal is Associated With Improved Medication Adherence: Quasi-Experimental Study

BACKGROUND

In surveys, interviews, and focus groups, patients taking medications and offered Web portal access to their primary care physicians' (PCPs) notes report improved adherence to their regimens. However, objective confirmation has yet to be reported.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between patient Internet portal access to primary care physician visit notes and medication adherence.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective comparative analysis at one site of the OpenNotes quasi-experimental trial. The setting includes primary care practices at the Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Danville, Pennsylvania. Participants include patients 18 years of age or older with electronic portal access, GHS primary care physicians, and Geisinger health plan insurance, and taking at least one antihypertensive or antihyperlipidemic agent from March 2009 to June 2011. Starting in March 2010, intervention patients were invited and reminded to read their PCPs' notes. Control patients also had Web portal access throughout, but their PCPs' notes were not available. From prescription claims, adherence was assessed by using the proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients with a PDC ≥.80 were considered adherent and were compared across groups using generalized linear models.

RESULTS

A total of 2147 patients (756 intervention participants, 35.21%; 1391 controls, 64.79%) were included in the analysis. Compared to those without access, patients invited to review notes were more adherent to antihypertensive medications-adherence rate 79.7% for intervention versus 75.3% for control group; adjusted risk ratio, 1.06 (95% CI 1.00-1.12). Adherence was similar among patient groups taking antihyperlipidemic agents-adherence rate 77.6% for intervention versus 77.3% for control group; adjusted risk ratio, 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Availability of notes following PCP visits was associated with improved adherence by patients prescribed antihypertensive, but not antihyperlipidemic, medications. As the use of fully transparent records spreads, patients invited to read their clinicians' notes may modify their behaviors in clinically valuable ways.

Patients who share transparent visit notes with others: characteristics, risks, and benefits

BACKGROUND

Inviting patients to read their primary care visit notes may improve communication and help them engage more actively in their health care. Little is known about how patients will use the opportunity to share their visit notes with family members or caregivers, or what the benefits might be.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to evaluate the characteristics of patients who reported sharing their visit notes during the course of the study, including their views on associated benefits and risks.

METHODS

The OpenNotes study invited patients to access their primary care providers' visit notes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Pre- and post-intervention surveys assessed patient demographics, standardized measures of patient-doctor communication, sharing of visit notes with others during the study, and specific health behaviors reflecting the potential benefits and risks of offering patients easy access to their visit notes.

RESULTS

More than half (55.43%, 2503/4516) of the participants who reported viewing at least one visit note would like the option of letting family members or friends have their own Web access to their visit notes, and 21.70% (980/4516) reported sharing their visit notes with someone during the study year. Men, and those retired or unable to work, were significantly more likely to share visit notes, and those sharing were neither more nor less concerned about their privacy than were non-sharers. Compared to participants who did not share clinic notes, those who shared were more likely to report taking better care of themselves and taking their medications as prescribed, after adjustment for age, gender, employment status, and study site.

CONCLUSIONS

One in five OpenNotes patients shared a visit note with someone, and those sharing Web access to their visit notes reported better adherence to self-care and medications. As health information technology systems increase patients' ability to access their medical records, facilitating access to caregivers may improve perceived health behaviors and outcomes.

Patient Access to Online Visit Notes: Perceptions of Doctors and Patients at an Urban HIV/AIDS Clinic

Patients living with HIV/AIDS face large societal and medical challenges. Inviting patients to read their doctors' visit notes via secure electronic portals may empower patients and improve health. We investigated whether utilization and perceptions about access to doctors' notes differed among doctors and patients in an HIV/AIDS clinic versus primary care setting. We analyzed pre- and 1-year postintervention data from 99 doctors and 3819 patients. HIV clinic patients did not report differences in perceived risks and benefits compared to primary care clinic patients, however, they were more likely to share notes with friends (33% versus 9%, P=.002), other health professionals (24% versus 8%, P=.03), or another doctor (38% versus 9%, P<.0001). HIV clinic doctors were less likely than primary care doctors to change the level of candor in visit notes (P<.04). Our findings suggest that HIV clinic patients and doctors are ready to share visit notes online.

Online access to doctors' notes: patient concerns about privacy

Background

Offering patients online access to medical records, including doctors’ visit notes, holds considerable potential to improve care. However, patients may worry about loss of privacy when accessing personal health information through Internet-based patient portals. The OpenNotes study provided patients at three US health care institutions with online access to their primary care doctors’ notes and then collected survey data about their experiences, including their concerns about privacy before and after participation in the intervention.

Objective

To identify patients’ attitudes toward privacy when given electronic access to their medical records, including visit notes.

Methods

The design used a nested cohort study of patients surveyed at baseline and after a 1-year period during which they were invited to read their visit notes through secure patient portals. Participants consisted of 3874 primary care patients from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (Boston, MA), Geisinger Health System (Danville, PA), and Harborview Medical Center (Seattle, WA) who completed surveys before and after the OpenNotes intervention. The measures were patient-reported levels of concern regarding privacy associated with online access to visit notes.

Results

32.91% of patients (1275/3874 respondents) reported concerns about privacy at baseline versus 36.63% (1419/3874 respondents) post-intervention. Baseline concerns were associated with non-white race/ethnicity and lower confidence in communicating with doctors, but were not associated with choosing to read notes or desire for continued online access post-intervention (nearly all patients with notes available chose to read them and wanted continued access). While the level of concern among most participants did not change during the intervention, 15.54% (602/3874 respondents, excluding participants who responded “don’t know”) reported more concern post-intervention, and 12.73% (493/3874 respondents, excluding participants who responded “don’t know”) reported less concern.

Conclusions

When considering online access to visit notes, approximately one-third of patients had concerns about privacy at baseline and post-intervention. These perceptions did not deter participants from accessing their notes, suggesting that the benefits of online access to medical records may outweigh patients’ perceived risks to privacy.

OpenNotes: hospitalists' challenge and opportunity

At a time of societal fascination both with transparency and the explosion of health information technologies, a growing number of hospitals are offering, or will soon offer patients and their family instantaneous access to their doctors' and nurses' notes. What will this new opportunity for patient engagement mean for the hospitalist? Today, state and federal government regulations either encourage or require healthcare providers to grant patients access to their clinical information. But despite the rules embedded in the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), patients often face time-consuming obstacles in their quest for access, and many providers view compliance as a burden. We suggest an alternative view: Over time, we anticipate that inviting patients to review their medical record will reduce risk, increase knowledge, foster active engagement, and help them take more control of their care. The OpenNotes trial provides clues as to how such practice will affect both patients and providers (1, 2). We anticipate that transparent records will stimulate hospitalists, PCPs, and other caregivers to improve communication throughout the patient's hospital stay. OpenNotes offers a special opportunity for improving the patient experience after leaving the hospital as well. Open notes will be viewed by many as a disruptive change, and the best strategy for adapting will be to move proactively to create policies that establish clear guidelines, for which the authors offer some suggestions.

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead

BACKGROUND

Little information exists about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients experience if patients are invited to read their doctors' office notes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect on doctors and patients of facilitating patient access to visit notes over secure Internet portals.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental trial of PCPs and patient volunteers in a year-long program that provided patients with electronic links to their doctors' notes.

SETTING

Primary care practices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Massachusetts, Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC) in Washington.

PARTICIPANTS

105 PCPs and 13,564 of their patients who had at least 1 completed note available during the intervention period.

MEASUREMENTS

Portal use and electronic messaging by patients and surveys focusing on participants' perceptions of behaviors, benefits, and negative consequences.

RESULTS

11,155 [corrected] of 13,564 patients with visit notes available opened at least 1 note (84% at BIDMC, 82% [corrected] at GHS, and 47% at HMC). Of 5219 [corrected] patients who opened at least 1 note and completed a postintervention survey, 77% to 59% [corrected] across the 3 sites reported that open notes helped them feel more in control of their care; 60% to 78% of those taking medications reported increased medication adherence; 26% to 36% had privacy concerns; 1% to 8% reported that the notes caused confusion, worry, or offense; and 20% to 42% reported sharing notes with others. The volume of electronic messages from patients did not change. After the intervention, few doctors reported longer visits (0% to 5%) or more time addressing patients' questions outside of visits (0% to 8%), with practice size having little effect; 3% to 36% of doctors reported changing documentation content; and 0% to 21% reported taking more time writing notes. Looking ahead, 59% to 62% of patients believed that they should be able to add comments to a doctor's note. One out of 3 patients believed that they should be able to approve the notes' contents, but 85% to 96% of doctors did not agree. At the end of the experimental period, 99% of patients wanted open notes to continue and no doctor elected to stop.

LIMITATIONS

Only 3 geographic areas were represented, and most participants were experienced in using portals. Doctors volunteering to participate and patients using portals and completing surveys may tend to offer favorable feedback, and the response rate of the patient surveys (41%) may further limit generalizability.

CONCLUSION

Patients accessed visit notes frequently, a large majority reported clinically relevant benefits and minimal concerns, and virtually all patients wanted the practice to continue. With doctors experiencing no more than a modest effect on their work lives, open notes seem worthy of widespread adoption.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Drane Family Fund, the Richard and Florence Koplow Charitable Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.

Evaluation of computer-based medical histories taken by patients at home

The authors developed a computer-based general medical history to be taken by patients in their homes over the internet before their first visit with their primary care doctor, and asked six doctors and their participating patients to assess this history and its effect on their subsequent visit. Forty patients began the history; 32 completed the history and post-history assessment questionnaire and were for the most part positive in their assessment; and 23 continued on to complete their post-visit assessment questionnaire and were for the most part positive about the helpfulness of the history and its summary at the time of their visit with the doctor. The doctors in turn strongly favored the immediate, routine use of two modules of the history--the family and social histories--for all their new patients. The doctors suggested further that the summaries of the other modules of the history be revised and shortened to make it easier for them to focus on clinical issues in the order of their preference.

Evaluating the impact of patients' online access to doctors' visit notes: designing and executing the OpenNotes project

Background

Providers and policymakers are pursuing strategies to increase patient engagement in health care. Increasingly, online sections of medical records are viewable by patients though seldom are clinicians' visit notes included. We designed a one-year multi-site trial of online patient accessible office visit notes, OpenNotes. We hypothesized that patients and primary care physicians (PCPs) would want it to continue and that OpenNotes would not lead to significant disruptions to doctors' practices.

Methods/Design

Using a mixed methods approach, we designed a quasi-experimental study in 3 diverse healthcare systems in Boston, Pennsylvania, and Seattle. Two sites had existing patient internet portals; the third used an experimental portal. We targeted 3 key areas where we hypothesized the greatest impacts: beliefs and attitudes about OpenNotes, use of the patient internet portals, and patient-doctor communication. PCPs in the 3 sites were invited to participate in the intervention. Patients who were registered portal users of participating PCPs were given access to their PCPs' visit notes for one year. PCPs who declined participation in the intervention and their patients served as the comparison groups for the study. We applied the RE-AIM framework to our design in order to capture as comprehensive a picture as possible of the impact of OpenNotes. We developed pre- and post-intervention surveys for online administration addressing attitudes and experiences based on interviews and focus groups with patients and doctors. In addition, we tracked use of the internet portals before and during the intervention.

Results

PCP participation varied from 19% to 87% across the 3 sites; a total of 114 PCPs enrolled in the intervention with their 22,000 patients who were registered portal users. Approximately 40% of intervention and non-intervention patients at the 3 sites responded to the online survey, yielding a total of approximately 38,000 patient surveys.

Discussion

Many primary care physicians were willing to participate in this "real world" experiment testing the impact of OpenNotes on their patients and their practices. Results from this trial will inform providers, policy makers, and patients who contemplate such changes at a time of exploding interest in transparency, patient safety, and improving the quality of care.

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: patients and doctors look ahead: patient and physician surveys

BACKGROUND

Little is known about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients would expect if patients were invited to read their doctors' office notes.

OBJECTIVE

To explore attitudes toward potential benefits or harms if PCPs offered patients ready access to visit notes.

DESIGN

The PCPs and patients completed surveys before joining a voluntary program that provided electronic links to doctors' notes.

SETTING

Primary care practices in 3 U.S. states.

PARTICIPANTS

Participating and nonparticipating PCPs and adult patients at primary care practices in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

MEASUREMENTS

Doctors' and patients' attitudes toward and expectations of open visit notes, their ideas about the potential benefits and risks, and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

110 of 114 participating PCPs (96%), 63 of 140 nonparticipating PCPs (45%), and 37 856 of 90 203 patients (42%) completed surveys. Overall, 69% to 81% of participating PCPs across the 3 sites and 92% to 97% of patients thought open visit notes were a good idea, compared with 16% to 33% of nonparticipating PCPs. Similarly, participating PCPs and patients generally agreed with statements about potential benefits of open visit notes, whereas nonparticipating PCPs were less likely to agree. Among participating PCPs, 74% to 92% anticipated improved communication and patient education, in contrast to 45% to 67% of nonparticipating PCPs. More than one half of participating PCPs (50% to 58%) and most nonparticipating PCPs (88% to 92%) expected that open visit notes would result in greater worry among patients; far fewer patients concurred (12% to 16%). Thirty-six percent to 50% of participating PCPs and 83% to 84% of nonparticipating PCPs anticipated more patient questions between visits. Few PCPs (0% to 33%) anticipated increased risk for lawsuits. Patient enthusiasm extended across age, education, and health status, and 22% anticipated sharing visit notes with others, including other doctors.

LIMITATIONS

Access to electronic patient portals is not widespread, and participation was limited to patients using such portals. Response rates were higher among participating PCPs than nonparticipating PCPs; many participating PCPs had small patient panels.

CONCLUSION

Among PCPs, opinions about open visit notes varied widely in terms of predicting the effect on their practices and benefits for patients. In contrast, patients expressed considerable enthusiasm and few fears, anticipating both improved understanding and more involvement in care. Sharing visit notes has broad implications for quality of care, privacy, and shared accountability.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Pioneer Portfolio, Drane Family Fund, and Koplow Charitable Foundation.

Promoting patient-centered care: a qualitative study of facilitators and barriers in healthcare organizations with a reputation for improving the patient experience

OBJECTIVE

To investigate organizational facilitators and barriers to patient-centered care in US health care institutions renowned for improving the patient care experience.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving interviews of senior staff and patient representatives. Semi-structured interviews focused on organizational processes, senior leadership, work environment, measurement and feedback mechanisms, patient engagement and information technology and access.

SETTING

Eight health care organizations across the USA with a reputation for successfully promoting patient-centered care.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty individuals, including chief executives, quality directors, chief medical officers, administrative directors and patient committee representatives.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported that several organizational attributes and processes are key facilitators for making care more patient-centered: (i) strong, committed senior leadership, (ii) clear communication of strategic vision, (iii) active engagement of patient and families throughout the institution, (iv) sustained focus on staff satisfaction, (v) active measurement and feedback reporting of patient experiences, (vi) adequate resourcing of care delivery redesign, (vii) staff capacity building, (viii) accountability and incentives and (ix) a culture strongly supportive of change and learning. Interviewees reported that changing the organizational culture from a 'provider-focus' to a 'patient-focus' and the length of time it took to transition toward such a focus were the principal barriers against transforming delivery for patient-centered care.

CONCLUSIONS

Organizations that have succeeded in fostering patient-centered care have gone beyond mainstream frameworks for quality improvement based on clinical measurement and audit and have adopted a strategic organizational approach to patient focus.

Test-retest reliability in a computer-based medical history

The authors developed a computer-based medical history for patients to take in their homes via the internet. The history consists of 232 'primary' questions asked of all patients, together with more than 6000 questions, explanations, and suggestions that are available for presentation as determined by a patient's responses. The purpose of this research was to measure the test-retest reliability of the 215 primary questions that have preformatted, mutually exclusive responses of 'Yes,' 'No,' 'Uncertain (Don't know, Maybe),' 'Don't understand,' and 'I'd rather not answer.' From randomly selected patients of doctors affiliated with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, 48 patients took the history twice with intervals between sessions ranging from 1 to 35 days (mean 7 days; median 5 days). High levels of test-retest reliability were found for most of the questions, but as a result of this study the authors revised five questions. They recommend that structured medical history questions that will be asked of many patients be measured for test-retest reliability before they are put into widespread clinical practice.

Open notes: doctors and patients signing on

Few patients read their doctors' notes, despite having the legal right to do so. As information technology makes medical records more accessible and society calls for greater transparency, patients' interest in reading their doctors' notes may increase. Inviting patients to review these notes could improve understanding of their health, foster productive communication, stimulate shared decision making, and ultimately lead to better outcomes. Yet, easy access to doctors' notes could have negative consequences, such as confusing or worrying patients and complicating rather than improving patient-doctor communication. To gain evidence about the feasibility, benefits, and harms of providing patients ready access to electronic doctors' notes, a team of physicians and nurses have embarked on a demonstration and evaluation of a project called OpenNotes. The authors describe the intervention and share what they learned from conversations with doctors and patients during the planning stages. The team anticipates that "open notes" will spread and suggests that over time, if drafted collaboratively and signed by both doctors and patients, they might evolve to become contracts for care.

Improving the patient, family, and clinician experience after harmful events: the "when things go wrong" curriculum

The emotional toll of medical error is high for both patients and clinicians, who are often unsure with whom-and whether-they can discuss what happened. Although institutions are increasingly adopting full disclosure policies, trainees frequently do not disclose mistakes, and faculty physicians are underprepared to teach communication skills related to disclosure and apology. The authors developed an interactive educational program for trainees and faculty physicians that assesses experiences, attitudes, and perceptions about error, explores the human impact of error through filmed patient and family narratives, develops communication skills, and offers a strategy to facilitate bedside disclosures. Between spring 2007 and fall 2008, 154 trainees (medical students/residents) and 75 medical educators completed the program. Among learners surveyed, 62% of trainees and 88% of faculty physicians reported making medical mistakes. Of those, 62% and 78%, respectively, reported they did not apologize. While 65% of trainees said they would turn to senior doctors for assistance after an error, 26% were not sure where to get help. Just 20% of trainees and 21% of physicians reported adequate training to respond to error. Following the session, all of the faculty physicians surveyed indicated they felt better prepared to address and teach this topic. At a time of increased attention to disclosure, actual faculty and trainee practices suggest that role models, support systems, and education strategies are lacking. Trainees' widespread experience with error highlights the need for a disclosure curriculum early in medical education. Educational initiatives focusing on communication after harm should target teachers and students.

Insights for internists: "I want the computer to know who I am"

BACKGROUND

In designing electronic personal health records (PHRs) and related health technologies, lay perspectives are rarely solicited, and we know little about what individuals want and need.

OBJECTIVE

To learn how diverse, primarily lay individuals envision how PHRs and other emerging and future electronic technologies could enhance their care.

DESIGN

Qualitative study of eight focus groups with adult consumers, patients, and health professionals.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-two adult frequent Internet users who expressed interest in health-related matters and represented diverse populations and a broad demographic range.

MEASUREMENTS

Focus group transcripts were analyzed qualitatively, using behavioral and grounded theory, employing an immersion/crystallization approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Individuals expect technology to transform their interactions with the health-care system. Participants want computers to bring them customized health information and advice: "I want the computer to know who I am." They desire unfettered access to their health record: "I don't know if I want to read [my entire record], but I want to have it." They expect home monitors and other technologies will communicate with clinicians, increasing efficiency and quality of life for patients and providers. Finally, especially for the chronically and acutely ill, privacy is of far less concern to patients than to health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Focus group participants have dynamic ideas about how information and related technologies could improve personal health management. Their perspectives, largely absent from the medical literature, provide insights that health professionals may lack. Including a diverse array of individuals throughout the process of designing new technologies will strengthen and shape their evolution.