Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

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

Objective

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

SUBMITTER: Blease C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8087962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAs of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.ObjectiveTo solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.DesignAn online 3-round Delphi poll.SettingOnline.ParticipantsInternational experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.Main outcomes, and measuresAn expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.ResultsA total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items: 42 potential benefits, and 48 potential harms. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items. There was consensus that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients' understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments, and that access could enhance patient recall and sense of empowerment. Experts also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization. However, panelists predicted there could be an increase in patients demanding changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians would be less detailed/accurate in documentation.Conclusions and relevanceThis iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.

Project description:Patients are increasingly asking for their health data. Yet, little is known about what motivates patients to engage with the electronic health record (EHR). Furthermore, quality-focused mechanisms for patients to comment about their records are lacking.We aimed to learn more about patient experiences with reading and providing feedback on their visit notes.We developed a patient feedback tool linked to OpenNotes as part of a pilot quality improvement initiative focused on patient engagement. Patients who had appointments with members of 2 primary care teams piloting the program between August 2014-2015 were eligible to participate. We asked patients what they liked about reading notes and about using a feedback tool and analyzed all patient reports submitted during the pilot period. Two researchers coded the qualitative responses (κ=.74).Patients and care partners submitted 260 reports. Among these, 98.5% (256/260) of reports indicated that the reporting tool was valuable, and 68.8% (179/260) highlighted what patients liked about reading notes and the OpenNotes patient reporting tool process. We identified 4 themes describing what patients value about note content: confirm and remember next steps, quicker access and results, positive emotions, and sharing information with care partners; and 4 themes about both patients' use of notes and the feedback tool: accuracy and correcting mistakes, partnership and engagement, bidirectional communication and enhanced education, and importance of feedback.Patients and care partners who read notes and submitted feedback reported greater engagement and the desire to help clinicians improve note accuracy. Aspects of what patients like about using both notes as well as a feedback tool highlight personal, relational, and safety benefits. Future efforts to engage patients through the EHR may be guided by what patients value, offering opportunities to strengthen care partnerships between patients and clinicians.

Project description:BackgroundMental health stigma is one of the most prominent barriers to recovery, and it is widely known that stigma may manifest differentially in different cultures. Healthcare professionals working closely with persons with mental illnesses (PMI) may provide important insights towards stigma that are otherwise unattainable from caregivers and consumers. However, there is a dearth of literature on healthcare professionals' perspectives on this topic. Thus, this study uses a multilevel approach to explore how stigma affects recovery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals that work closely with PMI in Singapore.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 17 healthcare professionals who were working in mental health settings in Singapore. Participants were recruited via direct email invitation or through snowball sampling. Data collected was analysed with the inductive thematic analysis method. All coding and inter-rater analyses were performed with NVivo.ResultsThe current study themes identified stigma-related factors that influence PMI's recovery from the perspectives of healthcare professionals working closely with PMI. These factors were organised into three overarching themes in a multilevel structure. The three themes were classified as Micro Factors (e.g., internalised stigma), Meso Factors (e.g., discrimination of people associated with the stigmatised group), and Macro Factors (e.g., structural stigma and stigma within healthcare settings).ConclusionsThe findings of this study gave us a greater understanding of how stigma influences recovery in Singapore, which could be used to guide the development and implementation of future policies and strategies to promote recovery. Importantly, our results suggest that improving mental health literacy, addressing cultural misgivings towards mental illness, implementing recovery-oriented practices, and making insurance more accessible for PMI could mitigate the deleterious impact that stigma has on recovery.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with mental disorders are treated by their general practitioner (GP). Innovative technology-based integrated care models (e.g., mental health specialist video consultations) have been proposed to facilitate access to specialist services in primary care settings. While perspectives of patients and providers have been examined, there is little insight into the perspectives of health policy experts on such models. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of health policy experts on (1) current challenges for continuity of care, (2) anticipated benefits and barriers for implementation of mental health specialist video consultations along with (3) practical and regulative preconditions for sustained implementation in primary care.MethodsIn a cross-sectional qualitative study, we conducted 15 semi-structured interviews with health policy experts representing various stakeholders in the German health care system: health insurances, governmental bodies, clinicians' professional associations, and patient representatives. Following a critical realism approach, we applied a qualitative inductive content analysis to derive key themes from the material.ResultsHealth policy experts saw long waiting times for patients and a lack of collaboration between in- and outpatient mental health services as well as mental health specialists and GPs as main barriers for current continuity of care. Health policy experts also felt that video consultations bear great potential to foster coordinated care between GPs and specialists and ensure timely referral for severely burdened patients. Increased workload for the general practice staff to facilitate video consultations and difficulties in establishing reliable therapeutic alliances between patients and specialists via remote treatment were considered as major barriers. Health policy experts varied significantly in their level of knowledge concerning legal frameworks and regulations pertaining to video consultations. However, the implementation of appropriate reimbursement schemes and sufficient data protection were regarded as the major regulative challenges.ConclusionsHealth policy experts mostly consider mental health specialist video consultations as a promising way to overcome current challenges for the management of patients with mental disorders at the interface between primary and specialist care. To ensure sustained implementation, a multi-stakeholder approach accounting for the perspective of health policy experts, patients, and providers should be followed.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00012487.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The New Public Management movement strove for transparency so that policy makers and citizens could gain insight into the work and performance of health care. As the use of the electronic health record (EHR) started to diffuse, a foundation was laid for enhanced transparency within and between health care organizations. Now we appear to be experiencing a new kind of transparency in the health care sector. Many health care providers offer their patients online access to their EHRs (here referred to as Open Notes). The Open Notes system enables and strives for transparency between the health care organization and the patient. Hence, this study investigates health care professional (HCP) perceptions of Open Notes and deepens the understanding of the transparency that Open Notes implies. OBJECTIVE:Based on two survey studies of HCP perceptions of Open Notes, this paper aims to deepen the academic writing on the type of transparency that is connected to Open Notes. METHODS:HCPs in adult psychiatry in Region Skåne, Sweden, were surveyed before and after implementation of Open Notes. The empirical material presented consists of 1554 free-text answers from two Web surveys. A qualitative content analysis was performed. RESULTS:The theoretically informed analysis pivots around the following factors connected to transparency: effectiveness; trust; accountability; autonomy and control; confidentiality, privacy, and anonymity; fairness; and legitimacy. The results show that free-text answers can be sorted under these factors as trade-offs with transparency. According to HCPs, trade-offs affect their work, their relationship with patients, and not least, their work tool, the EHR. However, since many HCPs also state that they have not met many patients, and in some cases none, who have read their EHRs, these effects seem to be more connected to the possibility (or threat) of transparency than to the actual effectuated transparency. CONCLUSIONS:The implementation (or reform) of Open Notes is policy driven while demanding real-time transparency on behalf of citizens/patients and not the authorities, which makes this particular form of transparency quite unique and interesting. We have chosen to call it governed individual real-time transparency. The effects of Open Notes may vary between different medical specialties relative to their sensitivity to both total and real-time transparency. When HCPs react by changing their ways of writing notes, Open Notes can affect the efficiency of the work of HCPs and the service itself in a negative manner. HCP reactions are aimed primarily at protecting patients and their relatives as well as their own relationship with the patients and secondly at protecting themselves. Thus, governed individual real-time transparency that provides full transparency of an actual practice in health care may have the intended positive effects but can also result in negative trade-offs between transparency and efficiency of the actual practice. This may imply that full transparency is not always most desirable but that other options can be considered on a scale between none and full transparency.

Project description:BackgroundMental illnesses pose a significant burden worldwide. Furthermore, the treatment gap for mental disorders is large. A contributor to this treatment gap is the perceived stigma towards mental illness. Besides impeding one's help-seeking intentions, stigma also impairs persons with mental illness (PMI) in other aspects of their life. Studies have found that stigma may manifest differentially under different cultural contexts. Thus, this study seeks to elucidate the determinants of stigma towards PMI among lay public in Singapore using a qualitative approach.MethodsA total of 9 focus group discussions (FGD) were conducted with 63 participants consisting of lay public Singaporeans who were neither students or professionals in the mental health field, nor had they ever been diagnosed with a mental illness. Topics discussed during the FGD were related to the stigma of mental illness. Data collected were analyzed with inductive thematic analysis method. A codebook was derived through an iterative process, and data was coded by 4 different coders. Both coding and inter-rater analysis were performed with NVivo V.11.ResultsIn total, 11 themes for the determinants of stigma were identified and conceptualized into a socioecological model. The socioecological model comprised 4 levels of themes: 1) Individual level beliefs (fear towards PMI, perceiving PMI to be burdensome, dismissing mental illness as not a real condition), 2) Interpersonal influences (upbringing that instills stigma, intergroup bias, perceived inability to handle interactions with PMI), 3) Local cultural values (elitist mindset among Singaporeans, Chinese culture of "face", Islamic beliefs about spiritual possession and reaction towards PMI), and 4) Shared societal culture (negative portrayal by media, Asian values).ConclusionsThe findings of this study improved our understanding of the various reasons why stigma exists in Singapore. The themes identified in this study concur with that of studies conducted overseas, as some determinants of stigma such as fear towards PMI are quite ubiquitous. Specifically, the themes elitist mindset among Singaporeans and perceived inability to handle interactions with PMI were unique to this study. It is highly recommended that future anti-stigma campaigns in Singapore should incorporate the findings of this study to ensure cultural misgivings and beliefs are addressed adequately.