Jordan M Alpert1, Bonny B Morris2, Maria D Thomson2, Khalid Matin3, Roy T Sabo4, Richard F Brown2. 1. University of Florida, Journalism and Communications. Electronic address: jordan.alpert@ufl.edu. 2. Virginia Commonwealth University, Health Behavior and Policy. 3. Virginia Commonwealth University, Hematology/Oncology. 4. Virginia Commonwealth University, Biostatistics.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providers have expressed concern about patient access to clinical notes. There is the possibility that providers may linguistically censor notes knowing that patients have access. PURPOSE: Qualitative interviews and a pre- and post- linguistic analysis of the implementation of OpenNotes was performed to determine whether oncologists changed the content and style of their notes. METHODS: Mixed methods were utilized, including 13 semi-structured interviews with oncologists and random effects modeling of over 500 clinical notes. The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program was used to evaluate notes for emotions, thinking styles, and social concerns. RESULTS: No significant differences from pre- and post-implementation of OpenNotes was found. Thematic analysis revealed that oncologists were concerned that changing their notes would negatively impact multidisciplinary communication. However, oncologists acknowledged that notes could be more patient-friendly and may stimulate patient-provider communication. CONCLUSIONS: Although oncologists were aware that patients could have access, they felt strongly about not changing the content of notes. A comparison between pre- and post-implementation confirmed this view and found that notes did not change. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient access to oncologist's notes may serve as an opportunity to reinforce important aspects of the consultation.
BACKGROUND: Providers have expressed concern about patient access to clinical notes. There is the possibility that providers may linguistically censor notes knowing that patients have access. PURPOSE: Qualitative interviews and a pre- and post- linguistic analysis of the implementation of OpenNotes was performed to determine whether oncologists changed the content and style of their notes. METHODS: Mixed methods were utilized, including 13 semi-structured interviews with oncologists and random effects modeling of over 500 clinical notes. The Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program was used to evaluate notes for emotions, thinking styles, and social concerns. RESULTS: No significant differences from pre- and post-implementation of OpenNotes was found. Thematic analysis revealed that oncologists were concerned that changing their notes would negatively impact multidisciplinary communication. However, oncologists acknowledged that notes could be more patient-friendly and may stimulate patient-provider communication. CONCLUSIONS: Although oncologists were aware that patients could have access, they felt strongly about not changing the content of notes. A comparison between pre- and post-implementation confirmed this view and found that notes did not change. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patient access to oncologist's notes may serve as an opportunity to reinforce important aspects of the consultation.
Authors: Sigall K Bell; Roanne Mejilla; Melissa Anselmo; Jonathan D Darer; Joann G Elmore; Suzanne Leveille; Long Ngo; James D Ralston; Tom Delbanco; Jan Walker Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Jordan M Alpert; Chelsea N Hampton; Aantaki Raisa; Merry Jennifer Markham; Carma L Bylund Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-10-19 Impact factor: 3.359
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