Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Bell SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7255406 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Bell Sigall K SK Mejilla Roanne R Anselmo Melissa M Darer Jonathan D JD Elmore Joann G JG Leveille Suzanne S Ngo Long L Ralston James D JD Delbanco Tom T Walker Jan J

BMJ quality & safety 20160518 4

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Presurveys and postsurveys from 99 volunteer doctors at three US sites who participated in OpenNotes and postsurveys ...[more]

PMID: 27193032

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Asian countries are making efforts to apply the partnership model in doctor-patient communication that has been used effectively in Western countries. However, notable differences between Western and Asian cultures, especially the acceptance of a hierarchical order and little attention to individuality in Asian cultures, could mean that the application of the partnership model in Vietnam requires adaptation. The study aimed to investigate whether communication models used in the Western world are appropriate in Southeast Asia, and to identify key items in doctor-patient communication that should be included in a doctor-patient communication model for training in Vietnam. METHODS:In six provinces, collaborating medical schools collected data from 480 patients using face-to-face surveys with a structured guideline following a consultation session, and from 473 doctors using a cross-sectional survey on how they usually conduct consultation sessions with patients. Data collection tools covered a list of communication skills based on Western models, adapted to fit with local legislation. Using logistic regression, we examined whether doctor patient communication items and other factors were predictors of patient satisfaction. RESULTS:Both patients and doctors considered most elements in the list necessary for good doctor-patient communication. Both also felt that while actual communication was generally good, there was also room for improvement. Furthermore, the doctors had higher expectations than did the patients. Four items in the Western model for doctor-patient communication, all promoting the partnership relation between them, appeared to have lower priority for both patients and doctors in Vietnam. CONCLUSION:The communication model used in the Western world could be applied in Vietnam with minor adaptations. Increasing patients' understanding of their partner role needs to be considered. The implications for medical training in universities are to focus first on the key skills perceived as needing to be strengthened by both doctors and patients. In the longer term, all of these items should be included in the training to prepare for the future.

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:ImportanceAs 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.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes.Design, setting, and participantsIn 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.ExposuresAccess to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017).Main outcomes and measuresProportion 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.ResultsOf 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 relevanceIn 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.

Project description:ObjectiveThe effects of shared clinical notes on patients, care partners, and clinicians ("open notes") were first studied as a demonstration project in 2010. Since then, multiple studies have shown clinicians agree shared progress notes are beneficial to patients, and patients and care partners report benefits from reading notes. To determine if implementing open notes at a hematology/oncology practice changed providers' documentation style, we assessed the length and readability of clinicians' notes before and after open notes implementation at an academic medical center in Boston, MA, USA.Materials and methodsWe analyzed 143 888 notes from 60 hematology/oncology clinicians before and after the open notes debut at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, from January 1, 2012 to September 1, 2016. We measured the providers' (medical doctor/nurse practitioner) documentation styles by analyzing character length, the number of addenda, note entry mode (dictated vs typed), and note readability. Measurements used 5 different readability formulas and were assessed on notes written before and after the introduction of open notes on November 25, 2013.ResultsAfter the introduction of open notes, the mean length of progress notes increased from 6174 characters to 6648 characters (P < .001), and the mean character length of the "assessment and plan" (A&P) increased from 1435 characters to 1597 characters (P < .001). The Average Grade Level Readability of progress notes decreased from 11.50 to 11.33, and overall readability improved by 0.17 (P = .01). There were no statistically significant changes in the length or readability of "Initial Notes" or Letters, inter-doctor communication, nor in the modality of the recording of any kind of note.ConclusionsAfter the implementation of open notes, progress notes and A&P sections became both longer and easier to read. This suggests clinician documenters may be responding to the perceived pressures of a transparent medical records environment.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets