The 21st Century Cures Act has accelerated adoption of OpenNotes, providing new opportunities for patient and family engagement in their care. However, these regulations present new challenges, particularly for pediatric health systems aiming to improve information sharing while minimizing risks associated with adolescent confidentiality and safety.
Quality and Safety
Sharing Clinical Notes Potential Medical-Legal Benefits and Risks
It is possible that greater mutual understanding and strengthened patient-physician communication could promote better health outcomes and reduce patients’ inclination to litigate even when medical errors do arise. Verifying the potential effects of sharing clinical notes on malpractice liability risks will require thorough study and monitoring.
Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care
The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning.
Co-development of OurDX—an online tool to facilitate patient and family engagement in the diagnostic process
Patients and their care partners are usually the first to notice new or changing symptoms and are the connecting “thread” between different healthcare encounters. In this article Sigall Bell, Fabienne Bourgeois, Stephen Liu, and Eric Thomas—along with patient partners Betsy Lowe and Liz Salmi—describe the co-development of an online tool called “OurDX” (Our Diagnosis) to engage patients and families in the diagnostic process
Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice
We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients’ access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.
Patient Access to Mental Health Notes: Motivating Evidence-Informed Ethical Guidelines
In the last decade, many health organizations have embarked on a revolution in clinical communication. Using electronic devices, patients can now gain rapid access to their online clinical records. Legally, patients in many countries already have the right to obtain copies of their health records; however, the practice known as “open notes” is different. Via secure online health portals, patients are now able to access their test results, lists of medications, and the very words that clinicians write about them. Open notes are growing with most patients in the Nordic countries already offered access to their full electronic record. From April 2021, a new federal ruling in the United States mandates—with few exemptions—that providers offer patients access to their online notes.
Speaking up about patient-perceived serious visit note errors: Patient and family experiences and recommendations.
About half of patients and families who perceived a serious mistake in their notes reported it. Identified barriers demonstrate modifiable issues such as establishing clear mechanisms for reporting and more challenging issues such as creating a supportive culture. Respondents offered new ideas for engaging patients and families in improving note accuracy.
Open Notes: New Federal Rules Promoting Open and Transparent Communication
Patients report understanding what they read, and few take issue or pose subsequent questions. When they do, concerns are often warranted. Indeed, when it comes to safety, two eyes on one record can be far more helpful than two eyes perusing 1,000 records. One in five patients report that they find an error, 40% of which they consider serious. Among doctors inviting patients to read their notes for more than a year, 25% reported patients describing errors that they, the doctors, judged serious. Given the potential for finding mistakes early and preventing subsequent harm, among attorneys, patients, and doctors themselves there is consensus that litigation in the aggregate may well decrease. We know of no instances so far of litigation resulting from what a patient read in a note. Patients report that open notes build trust, and positive relationships promote forgiveness, even if mistakes are made.
Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes
As health information transparency increases, patients may perceive important errors in their visit notes, and inviting them to report mistakes that they believe are very serious may be associated with improved record accuracy and patient engagement in safety.
A patient and family reporting system for perceived ambulatory note mistakes: experience at 3 U.S. healthcare centers
Partnering with patients and families to obtain reports on inaccuracies in visit notes may contribute to safer care. Mechanisms to encourage greater use of patient and family reporting systems are needed.
Except where otherwise noted, the content by OpenNotes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
