John N Mafi1, Roanne Mejilla2, Henry Feldman2, Long Ngo2, Tom Delbanco2, Jonathan Darer3, Christina Wee2, Jan Walker2. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA jmafi@mednet.ucla.edu. 2. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Department of General Internal Medicine, Geisinger Health System, Danville, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients invited to review their clinicians' notes continue to access them and to assess the impact of reminders on whether patients continued to view notes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We followed OpenNotes trial participants for 2 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Electronic invitations alerting patients to signed notes stopped at GHS after year 1, creating a natural experiment to assess the impact of reminders. We used generalized linear models to measure whether notes were viewed within 30 days of availability. RESULTS: We identified 14 360 patients (49 271 visits); mean age 52.2; 57.8% female. In year 1, patients viewed 57.5% of their notes, and their interest in viewing notes persisted over time. In year 2, BIDMC patients viewed notes with similar frequency. In contrast, GHS patients viewed notes far less frequently, a change starting when invitations ceased (RR 0.29 [0.26-0.32]) and persisting to the end of the study (RR 0.20 [0.17-0.23]). A subanalysis of BIDMC patients revealed that black and other/multiracial patients also continued to view notes, although they were overall less likely to view notes compared with whites (RR 0.75 [0.67-0.83] and 0.93 [0.89-0.98], respectively). DISCUSSION: As millions of patients nationwide increasingly gain access to clinicians' notes, explicit email invitations to review notes may be important for fostering patient engagement and patient-doctor communication. CONCLUSION: Note viewing persists when accompanied by email alerts, but may decline substantially in their absence. Non-white patients at BIDMC viewed notes less frequently than whites, although their interest also persisted.
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients invited to review their clinicians' notes continue to access them and to assess the impact of reminders on whether patients continued to view notes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We followed OpenNotes trial participants for 2 years at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and Geisinger Health System (GHS). Electronic invitations alerting patients to signed notes stopped at GHS after year 1, creating a natural experiment to assess the impact of reminders. We used generalized linear models to measure whether notes were viewed within 30 days of availability. RESULTS: We identified 14 360 patients (49 271 visits); mean age 52.2; 57.8% female. In year 1, patients viewed 57.5% of their notes, and their interest in viewing notes persisted over time. In year 2, BIDMC patients viewed notes with similar frequency. In contrast, GHS patients viewed notes far less frequently, a change starting when invitations ceased (RR 0.29 [0.26-0.32]) and persisting to the end of the study (RR 0.20 [0.17-0.23]). A subanalysis of BIDMC patients revealed that black and other/multiracial patients also continued to view notes, although they were overall less likely to view notes compared with whites (RR 0.75 [0.67-0.83] and 0.93 [0.89-0.98], respectively). DISCUSSION: As millions of patients nationwide increasingly gain access to clinicians' notes, explicit email invitations to review notes may be important for fostering patient engagement and patient-doctor communication. CONCLUSION: Note viewing persists when accompanied by email alerts, but may decline substantially in their absence. Non-whitepatients at BIDMC viewed notes less frequently than whites, although their interest also persisted.
Authors: Adam Wright; Eric G Poon; Jonathan Wald; Joshua Feblowitz; Justine E Pang; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Richard W Grant; Tejal K Gandhi; Lynn A Volk; Amy Bloom; Deborah H Williams; Kate Gardner; Marianna Epstein; Lisa Nelson; Alex Businger; Qi Li; David W Bates; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-09-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rebecca G Mishuris; Max Stewart; Gemmae M Fix; Thomas Marcello; D Keith McInnes; Timothy P Hogan; Judith B Boardman; Steven R Simon Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Lisa V Grossman; Ruth M Masterson Creber; Natalie C Benda; Drew Wright; David K Vawdrey; Jessica S Ancker Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jared W Klein; Sara L Jackson; Sigall K Bell; Melissa K Anselmo; Jan Walker; Tom Delbanco; Joann G Elmore Journal: Am J Med Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Amanda C Blok; Daniel J Amante; Timothy P Hogan; Rajani S Sadasivam; Stephanie L Shimada; Susan Woods; Kim M Nazi; Thomas K Houston Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jacob N Stein; Jared W Klein; Thomas H Payne; Sara L Jackson; Sue Peacock; Natalia V Oster; Trinell P Carpenter; Joann G Elmore Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Jan Walker; Suzanne Leveille; Sigall Bell; Hannah Chimowitz; Zhiyong Dong; Joann G Elmore; Leonor Fernandez; Alan Fossa; Macda Gerard; Patricia Fitzgerald; Kendall Harcourt; Sara Jackson; Thomas H Payne; Jocelyn Perez; Hannah Shucard; Rebecca Stametz; Catherine DesRoches; Tom Delbanco Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 5.428