Open anesthetic records may empower patients. Armed with previous anesthetic records, patients may be better prepared to communicate prior adverse events or side effects. We may also see more patients who seek the same “cocktail” of anesthetics that were provided to them in the past or may ask for the same anesthesia providers who have cared for them. Overall, patients should be able to better communicate their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with prior anesthetic experiences. Anesthesia providers will also have access to a wealth of important information, like airway management details, from prior out-of-network anesthetic records.
Although limited by relatively low survey response rate, OpenNotes was well-received by parents of pediatric patients without untoward consequences. The main concerns pediatricians raise about OpenNotes proved to not be issues in the pediatric population. Our results demonstrate clear benefits to adoption of OpenNotes. This provides reassurance that the transition to sharing notes with pediatric patients can be successful and value additive.
One in 10 respondents reported feeling judged/offended by something they read in an outpatient note due to the perception that it contained errors, surprises, labeling, or evidence of disrespect. The content and tone may be particularly important to patients in poor health. Enhanced clinician awareness of the patient perspective may promote an improved medical lexicon, reduce the transmission of bias to other clinicians, and reinforce healing relationships.
In an effort to foster patient engagement, some healthcare systems provide their patients with open notes, enabling them to access their clinical notes online. In January 2013, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) implemented online access to clinical notes (“VA Notes”) through the Blue Button feature of its patient portal.
Secure patient portals have improved patient access to information, including provider notes. Although there is evidence suggesting that electronic note sharing improves communication and care quality, some studies have reported provider concerns regarding note sharing.
Four studies were used to evaluate the construct validity of a benefits and risks scale. Study 1 refined the items; study 2 evaluated underlying factor structure and identified the items; study 3 evaluated study 2 results in a separate sample; and study 4 examined factorial invariance of the developed scale across educational subsamples.
The findings suggest that the four-item benefits scale has excellent construct validity and preliminary evidence of generalising across different patient populations. Further scale development is needed to understand perceived risks of reading open notes.
Beginning November 2, 2020, opening clinical notes to patients with cancer will no longer be a decision left to individual clinicians or institutional preference but rather a requirement, as a result of the 21st Century Cures Act Interoperability and Information Blocking Rule. The rule requires patients to be provided access to all health information in their electronic medical records, including progress notes (aka ‘‘open notes’’) (The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, 2020). Cancer patients and their families face serious quality of life and information burdens that may be alleviated through access to notes (Blease et al., 2020). Earlier work has shown differences between clinician and patient attitudes after open notes implementation (Delbanco et al., 2010), but there has been no investigation into how oncology clinician views differ from those of their patients. We analyzed data from two web-based . . .
Our data demonstrate variability in the use of a confidential note type across specialties, patient ages, and types of confidential information. This note type is frequently utilized by a subset of providers who often manage sensitive patient and parent information. As vendors and institutions enable open notes, thoughtful implementation and provider education surrounding the use of this confidential feature is needed.
This paper connects findings from the field of placebo studies with research into patients’ interactions with their clinician’s visit notes, housed in their electronic health records, and proposes specific hypotheses about how features of clinicians’ written notes might trigger mechanisms of placebo and nocebo effects to elicit positive or adverse health effects among patients. Bridging placebo studies with (a) survey data assaying patient and clinician experiences with portals and (b) randomized controlled trials provides preliminary support for our hypotheses. The paper concludes with actionable proposals for testing the understanding of the health effects of access to visit notes.
Patients overwhelmingly report understanding their visit notes and usually find them accurate, with few disparities according to sociodemographic or health characteristics. They have many suggestions for improving their quality, and if they understand a note poorly or find inaccuracies, they often have less confidence in their clinicians.