Dataset Information

Anticipated Benefits and Concerns of Sharing Hospital Outpatient Visit Notes With Patients (Open Notes) in Dutch Hospitals: Mixed Methods Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The 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.

Objective

We 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.

Methods

This 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.

Results

Most 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.

Conclusions

Dutch 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.

SUBMITTER: Janssen SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8387887 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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 21st Century Cures Act mandates patients' access to their electronic health record (EHR) notes. To our knowledge, no previous work has systematically invited patients to proactively report diagnostic concerns while documenting and tracking their diagnostic experiences through EHR-based clinician note review.ObjectiveTo test if patients can identify concerns about their diagnosis through structured evaluation of their online visit notes.MethodsIn a large integrated health system, patients aged 18-85 years actively using the patient portal and seen between October 2019 and February 2020 were invited to respond to an online questionnaire if an EHR algorithm detected any recent unexpected return visit following an initial primary care consultation ("at-risk" visit). We developed and tested an instrument (Safer Dx Patient Instrument) to help patients identify concerns related to several dimensions of the diagnostic process based on notes review and recall of recent "at-risk" visits. Additional questions assessed patients' trust in their providers and their general feelings about the visit. The primary outcome was a self-reported diagnostic concern. Multivariate logistic regression tested whether the primary outcome was predicted by instrument variables.ResultsOf 293 566 visits, the algorithm identified 1282 eligible patients, of whom 486 responded. After applying exclusion criteria, 418 patients were included in the analysis. Fifty-one patients (12.2%) identified a diagnostic concern. Patients were more likely to report a concern if they disagreed with statements "the care plan the provider developed for me addressed all my medical concerns" [odds ratio (OR), 2.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.87) and "I trust the provider that I saw during my visit" (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.19-3.71) and agreed with the statement "I did not have a good feeling about my visit" (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.09-2.01).ConclusionPatients can identify diagnostic concerns based on a proactive online structured evaluation of visit notes. This surveillance strategy could potentially improve transparency in the diagnostic process.

Project description:BackgroundThe probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent according to the hospital of diagnosis varies for esophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. Little is known about the factors contributing to this variation. This study aimed to improve the understanding of the differences between the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal and the treatment that was actually carried out and to qualitatively investigate the differences in treatment decision-making after the multidisciplinary team meeting treatment proposal between hospitals.MethodsTo gain an in-depth understanding of treatment decision-making, quantitative data (i.e., multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and treatment that was carried out) were collected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment comprised changes in the type of treatment option (i.e., curative or palliative, or no change) and were calculated according to the multivariable multilevel probability of undergoing treatment with curative intent (low, middle, and high). Qualitative data were collected from eight hospitals, including observations of 26 outpatient clinic consultations, 30 in-depth interviews with clinicians, seven focus groups with clinicians, and three focus groups with patients. Clinicians and patients' perspectives were assessed using thematic content analysis.ResultsThe multidisciplinary team meeting proposal and applied treatment were concordant in 97% of the cases. Clinicians' implementation of treatment decision-making in clinical practice varied, which was mentioned by the clinicians to be due to the clinician's personality and values. Differences between clinicians consisted of discussing all treatment options versus only the best fitting treatment option and the extent of discussing the benefits and harms. Most patients aimed to undergo curative treatment regardless of the consequences, since they believed this could prolong their life.ConclusionSince changes in the multidisciplinary team meeting-proposed treatment and actual treatment were rarely observed, this study emphasizes the importance of an adequately formulated multidisciplinary team meeting proposal.