Dataset Information

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After-Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety-net settings.

Design

A mixed methods study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State.

Methods

Patients read their own most recent clinic note and After-Visit Summary, then completed a brief survey followed by a focus group discussion (3 groups in a large general medicine teaching clinic and 1 in an HIV/AIDS clinic) about their perceptions of the clinic note and After-Visit Summary.

Results

Twenty-seven patients participated; 70% were male, 41% were Black, 48% were unemployed or disabled, 56% reported fair/poor health, and 37% had accessed the electronic patient portal. A majority of patients felt their note content was useful (89%); a minority reported that their notes were not accurate (19%), had too much medical jargon (29%), or were too long (26%). Themes identified from the discussions included reliance on the provider to explain confusing content; a desire for more rather than less detail; and perceived inaccuracies, particularly in heavily templated notes. In each focus group, one or more portal users were enthusiastically willing to teach other patients.

Conclusions

The majority of focus group participants at this safety-net site had not accessed the electronic patient portal, but those who had were willing to promote the portal benefits and assist others. Patients identified specific opportunities to improve clinic notes and After-Visit Summaries.

SUBMITTER: Belyeu BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5867322 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

Belyeu Brittaney M BM Klein Jared W JW Reisch Lisa M LM Peacock Sue S Oster Natalia V NV Elmore Joann G JG Jackson Sara L SL

Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy 20171102 2

<h4>Background</h4>Patients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After-Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety-net settings.<h4>Design</h4>A mixed methods study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients read their own most recent clinic ...[more]

PMID: 29095554

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSecure 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.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention.MethodsBefore 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.ResultsForms 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.ConclusionsOurNotes 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.

Project description:BackgroundThe past few years have seen an increase in interest in sharing visit notes with patients. Sharing visit notes with patients is also known as "open notes." Shared notes are seen as beneficial for patient empowerment and communication, but concerns have also been raised about potential negative effects. Understanding barriers is essential to successful organizational change, but most published studies on the topic come from countries where shared notes are incentivized or legally required.ObjectiveWe aim to gather opinions about sharing outpatient clinic visit notes from patients and hospital physicians in the Netherlands, where there is currently no policy or incentive plan for shared visit notes.MethodsThis multimethodological study was conducted in an academic and a nonacademic hospital in the Netherlands. We conducted a survey of patients and doctors in March-April 2019. In addition to the survey, we conducted think-aloud interviews to gather more insight into the reasons behind participants' answers. We surveyed 350 physicians and 99 patients, and think-aloud interviews were conducted with an additional 13 physicians and 6 patients.ResultsMost patients (81/98, 77%) were interested in viewing their visit notes, whereas most physicians (262/345, 75.9%) were opposed to allowing patients to view their visit notes. Most patients (54/90, 60%) expected the notes to be written in layman's terms, but most physicians (193/321, 60.1%) did not want to change their writing style to make it more understandable for patients. Doctors raised concerns that reading the note would make patients feel confused and anxious, that the patient would not understand the note, and that shared notes would result in more documentation time or losing a way to communicate with colleagues. Interviews also revealed concerns about documenting sensitive topics such as suspected abuse and unlikely but worrisome differential diagnoses. Physicians also raised concerns that documenting worrisome thoughts elsewhere in the record would result in fragmentation of the patient record. Patients were uncertain if they would understand the notes (46/90, 51%) and, in interviews, raised questions about security and privacy. Physicians did anticipate some benefits, such as the patients remembering the visit better, shared decision-making, and keeping patients informed, but 24% (84/350) indicated that they saw no benefit. Patients anticipated that they would remember the visit better, feel more in control, and better understand their health.ConclusionsDutch patients are interested in shared visit notes, but physicians have many concerns that should be addressed if shared notes are pursued. Physicians' concerns should be addressed before shared notes are implemented. In hospitals where shared notes are implemented, the effects should be monitored (objectively, if possible) to determine whether the concerns raised by our participants have actualized into problems and whether the anticipated benefits are being realized.

Project description:ObjectivesTo develop and evaluate the validity of a scale to assess patients' perceived benefits and risks of reading ambulatory visit notes online (open notes).DesignFour studies were used to evaluate the construct validity of a benefits and risks scale. Study 1 refined the items; study 2 evaluated underlying factor structure and identified the items; study 3 evaluated study 2 results in a separate sample; and study 4 examined factorial invariance of the developed scale across educational subsamples.SettingAmbulatory care in three large health systems in the USA.ParticipantsParticipants in three US health systems who responded to one of two online surveys asking about benefits and risks of reading visit notes: a psychometrics survey of primary care patients, and a large general survey of patients across all ambulatory specialties. Sample sizes: n=439 (study 1); n=439 (study 2); n=500 (study 3); and n=250 (study 4).Primary and secondary outcome measuresQuestionnaire items about patients' perceived benefits and risks of reading online visit notes.ResultsStudy 1 resulted in the selection of a 10-point importance response option format over a 4-point agreement scale. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in study 2 resulted in two-factor solution: a four-item benefits factor with good reliability (alpha=0.83) and a three-item risks factor with poor reliability (alpha=0.52). The factor structure was confirmed in study 3, and confirmatory factor analysis of benefit items resulted in an excellent fitting model, X2(2)=2.949; confirmatory factor index=0.998; root mean square error of approximation=0.04 (0.00, 0.142); loadings 0.68-0.86; alpha=0.88. Study 4 supported configural, measurement and structural invariance for the benefits scale across high and low-education patient groups.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the four-item benefits scale has excellent construct validity and preliminary evidence of generalising across different patient populations. Further scale development is needed to understand perceived risks of reading open notes.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To examine what activities constitute the work of Foundation doctors and understand the factors that determine how that work is constructed. DESIGN:Cross-sectional mixed methods study. Questionnaire survey of the frequency with which activities specified in curricular documents are performed. Semistructured interviews and focus groups. SETTING:Postgraduate medical training in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:Doctors in their first 2 years of postgraduate practice (Foundation Programme). Staff who work with Foundation doctors-supervisors, nurses and employers (clinical; non-clinical). RESULTS:Survey data from 3697 Foundation doctors identified curricular activities (41/103, 42%) that are carried out routinely (performed at least once or twice per week by >75% of respondents). However, another 30 activities (29%) were carried out rarely (at least once or twice per week by <25% respondents), largely because they are routinely part of nurses', and not doctors', work. Junior doctors indicated their work constituted three roles: 'support' of ward and team, 'independent practitioner' and 'learner'. The support function dominated work, but conflicted with stereotyped expectations of what 'being a doctor' would be. It was, however, valued by the other staff groups. The learner role was felt to be incidental to practice, but was couched in a limited definition of learning that related to new skills, rather than consolidation and practice. Activities and perceived role were shaped by the organisational context, medical hierarchies and through relationships with nurses, which could change unpredictably and cause tension. Training progression did not affect what activities were done, but supported greater autonomy in how they were carried out. CONCLUSIONS:New doctors must be fit for multiple roles. Strategies for transition should manage graduates' expectations of real-world work, and encourage teams and organisations to better accommodate graduates. These strategies may help ensure that new doctors can adapt to the variable demands of the evolving multiprofessional workforce.

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Dataset Information

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

Background

Design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure