Bryan S Lee1,2, Natalia V Oster3, Galen Y Chen3, Leona L Ding1, Janice D Walker4, Joann G Elmore3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 2. Altos Eye Physicians, Los Altos, CA, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand patients' perceptions about potential benefits and harms of accessing their own ophthalmology clinic notes via an electronic patient portal as part of the OpenNotes initiative. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional, in-person survey of ophthalmology patients at three US eye clinics. The paper survey was self-administered or administered with assistance from study staff before or after patients' clinical visits. The authors used descriptive statistics to summarise patient characteristics and patient attitudes about accessing their ophthalmology notes online. Chi-square and t-tests were performed to assess differences in patient responses between clinic locations. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-one patients responded (response rate 65%). Most patients thought that accessing doctors' notes online was a good idea (95%), wanted to view their clinic notes online (94%), and agreed online access would increase their understanding of their eye problems (95%) and help them better remember their care plan (94%); 14% said online access would increase their worry; 43% had privacy concerns; and 96% indicated they would show or discuss their notes with at least one other person. Non-white patients were more likely than white patients to perceive online clinic notes as a useful tool, but they were also more likely to worry and to express greater privacy concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at three US eye clinics were strongly in favour of online access to ophthalmology notes and were optimistic this access would improve their understanding and self-care. Ophthalmologists should consider offering online access to their notes to enhance doctor-patient communication and improve clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand patients' perceptions about potential benefits and harms of accessing their own ophthalmology clinic notes via an electronic patient portal as part of the OpenNotes initiative. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional, in-person survey of ophthalmology patients at three US eye clinics. The paper survey was self-administered or administered with assistance from study staff before or after patients' clinical visits. The authors used descriptive statistics to summarise patient characteristics and patient attitudes about accessing their ophthalmology notes online. Chi-square and t-tests were performed to assess differences in patient responses between clinic locations. RESULTS: Four hundred and fifty-one patients responded (response rate 65%). Most patients thought that accessing doctors' notes online was a good idea (95%), wanted to view their clinic notes online (94%), and agreed online access would increase their understanding of their eye problems (95%) and help them better remember their care plan (94%); 14% said online access would increase their worry; 43% had privacy concerns; and 96% indicated they would show or discuss their notes with at least one other person. Non-whitepatients were more likely than white patients to perceive online clinic notes as a useful tool, but they were also more likely to worry and to express greater privacy concerns. CONCLUSIONS:Patients at three US eye clinics were strongly in favour of online access to ophthalmology notes and were optimistic this access would improve their understanding and self-care. Ophthalmologists should consider offering online access to their notes to enhance doctor-patient communication and improve clinical outcomes.
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
Authors: James D Ralston; Onchee Yu; Robert B Penfold; Gabrielle Gundersen; Arvind Ramaprasan; Ellen M Schartz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jake E Radell; Jasmine N Tatum; Chen-Tan Lin; Richard S Davidson; Jonathan Pell; Amber Sieja; Albert Y Wu Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 4.456