Sigall K Bell1, Roanne Mejilla1, Melissa Anselmo1, Jonathan D Darer2, Joann G Elmore3, Suzanne Leveille1,4, Long Ngo1, James D Ralston5, Tom Delbanco1, Jan Walker1. 1. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Chief Medical Officer at Medicalis, San Francisco, CA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 4. College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Group Health Research Institute, Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington, USA.
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. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
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. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Authors: Alisa Khan; Stephannie L Furtak; Patrice Melvin; Jayne E Rogers; Mark A Schuster; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Jan Walker; Suzanne G Leveille; Long Ngo; Elisabeth Vodicka; Jonathan D Darer; Shireesha Dhanireddy; Joann G Elmore; Henry J Feldman; Marc J Lichtenfeld; Natalia Oster; James D Ralston; Stephen E Ross; Tom Delbanco Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Kevin Fiscella; Sean Meldrum; Peter Franks; Cleveland G Shields; Paul Duberstein; Susan H McDaniel; Ronald M Epstein Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Joel S Weissman; Eric C Schneider; Saul N Weingart; Arnold M Epstein; Joann David-Kasdan; Sandra Feibelmann; Catherine L Annas; Nancy Ridley; Leslie Kirle; Constantine Gatsonis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Sigall K Bell; Patricia H Folcarelli; Melissa K Anselmo; Bradley H Crotty; Lydia A Flier; Jan Walker Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2015-08
Authors: Lisa V Grossman; Elliot G Mitchell; George Hripcsak; Chunhua Weng; David K Vawdrey Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-11-07 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Lisa V Grossman; Ruth M Masterson Creber; Jessica S Ancker; Beatriz Ryan; Fernanda Polubriaginof; Min Qian; Irma Alarcon; Susan Restaino; Suzanne Bakken; George Hripcsak; David K Vawdrey Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Jared W Klein; Sue Peacock; Judith I Tsui; Stephen F O'Neill; Catherine M DesRoches; Joann G Elmore Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-07 Impact factor: 5.166