Dataset Information

Changes in Clinician Attitudes Toward Sharing Visit Notes: Surveys Pre-and Post-Implementation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinician perceptions before and after inviting patients to read office notes (open notes) are unknown.

Objective

To describe changes in clinicians' attitudes about sharing notes with patients.

Design, participants, and main measure

Survey of outpatient primary and specialty care clinicians who were from a large group practice and had one or more patients who accessed notes. The main outcome was percent change (before vs. after implementation) in clinician perception that online visit notes are beneficial overall.

Key results

Of the 563 invited clinicians, 400 (71%) took the baseline survey; 295 were eligible for a follow-up survey with 192 (65%) responding (119 primary care, 47 medical specialties, 26 surgical specialties). Before implementation, 29% agreed or somewhat agreed that visit notes online are beneficial overall, increasing to 71% following implementation (p<0.001); 44% switched beliefs from bad to good idea; and 2% reported the opposite change (p<0.001). This post-implementation change was observed in all clinician categories. Compared to pre-implementation, fewer clinicians had concerns about office visits taking longer (47% pre vs. 15% post) or requiring more time for questions (71% vs. 16%), or producing notes (57% vs. 28%). Before and after implementation, most clinicians reported being less candid in documentation (65% vs. 52%) and that patients would have more control of their care (72% vs. 78%) and worry more (72% vs. 65%).

Conclusions

Following implementation, more primary and specialty care clinicians agreed that sharing notes with patients online was beneficial overall. Fewer had concerns about more time needed for office visits or documentation. Most thought patients would worry more and reported being less candid in documentation.

SUBMITTER: Ralston JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8061150 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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: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:BACKGROUND:Individual-level implementation determinants, such as clinician attitudes, commonly influence the successful adoption of evidence-based practices, but few explicit strategies have been tested with regard to their ability to impact these key mechanisms of change. This paper reports on an initial test of a blended, theoretically informed pre-implementation strategy designed to target malleable individual-level determinants of behavior change. Beliefs and Attitudes for Successful Implementation in Schools (BASIS) is a brief and pragmatic pre-implementation strategy that uses strategic education, social influence techniques, and group-based motivational interviewing to target implementation attitudes, perceived social norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions to implement among mental health clinicians working in the education sector. METHODS:As part of a pilot trial, 25 school mental health clinicians were randomized to BASIS (n?=?12) or an attention control placebo (n?=?13), with both conditions receiving training and consultation in an evidence-based intervention for youth experiencing trauma (the Cognitive Behavioral Intervention for Trauma in Schools). Theorized mechanisms of change (attitudes, perceived social norms, perceived behavioral control, and behavioral intentions) were assessed at baseline, post-training, and 4-month follow-up. Clinician participation in post-training consultation and intervention adoption were also tracked. RESULTS:A series of regression models and independent sample t tests indicated that BASIS had significant, medium to large effects on the majority of its proximal mechanisms from baseline to post-training. BASIS was also associated with a greater latency between initial training in the intervention and discontinuation of participation in post-training consultation, with clinicians in the BASIS condition persisting in consultation for an average of 134 days versus 32 days for controls, but this difference was not statistically significant. At 4-month follow-up, most differences in the theorized mechanisms had attenuated, and approximately the same small number of BASIS clinicians adopted the trauma intervention as controls. CONCLUSION:Findings suggest that the brief BASIS pre-implementation strategy had a significant influence on its proximal mechanisms of change, but that these changes did not persist over time or translate into adoption of the trauma intervention. Implications for theory refinement, revisions to the BASIS protocol, and next steps for research surrounding individual-level implementation strategies are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03791281 . Registered 31 December 2018-Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundClinician attitudes toward patients are associated with variability in the quality of health care. Attitudes are typically considered difficult to change, and few interventions have attempted to do so. Negative attitudes toward adults with sickle cell disease have been identified as an important barrier to the receipt of appropriate pain management for this patient population.ObjectiveTo test the effect of a video-intervention designed to improve clinician attitudes toward adults with sickle cell disease.InterventionsAn 8-minute video depicting a clinician expert and patients discussing challenges in seeking treatment for sickle cell pain.Design and participantsA randomized post-test only control group design was used to assess the impact of the intervention on the attitudes of 276 nurses and housestaff working at a large, urban, academic medical center.Main measuresAttitudes toward adult sickle cell patients assessed using 5- and 6-point Likert-scale items. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify underlying attitudinal domains and develop scales. Examples of the negative and positive attitudes assessed include clinician estimates of the percentage of SCD patients that exaggerate pain (negative) or make clinicians glad they went into medicine (positive).Key resultsCompared to the control group, the intervention group exhibited decreased negative attitudes (Difference in means = -8.9, 95%CI [-14.2, -3.6]; Cohen's d = 0.41), decreased endorsement of certain patient behaviors as "concern-raising" (Difference in means = -7.8, 95%CI [-13.1, -2.5]; Cohen's d = 0.36), and increased positive attitudes toward sickle cell patients (Difference in means = 6.6, 95% CI [0.6, 12.6]; Cohen's d = 0.27).ConclusionsOur results suggest that the attitudes of clinicians toward sickle cell patients may be improved through a short and relatively easy to implement intervention. Whether the attitudinal differences associated with our intervention are sustainable or are linked to clinical outcomes remains to be seen.