Sharing notes with mental health patients: balancing risks with respect

Development of Recommendations for the Digital Sharing of Notes With Adolescents in Mental Health Care: Delphi Study

Background

In many countries, health care professionals are legally obliged to share information from electronic health records with patients. However, concerns have been raised regarding the sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care, and health care professionals have called for recommendations to guide this practice.

Objective

The aim was to reach a consensus among authors of scientific papers on recommendations for health care professionals' digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care and to investigate whether staff at child and adolescent specialist mental health care clinics agreed with the recommendations.

Methods

A Delphi study was conducted with authors of scientific papers to reach a consensus on recommendations. The process of making the recommendations involved three steps. First, scientific papers meeting the eligibility criteria were identified through a PubMed search where the references were screened. Second, the results from the included papers were coded and transformed into recommendations in an iterative process. Third, the authors of the included papers were asked to provide feedback and consider their agreement with each of the suggested recommendations in two rounds. After the Delphi process, a cross-sectional study was conducted among staff at specialist child and adolescent mental health care clinics to assess whether they agreed with the recommendations that reached a consensus.

Results

Of the 84 invited authors, 27 responded. A consensus was reached on 17 recommendations on areas related to digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care. The recommendations considered how to introduce digital access to notes, write notes, and support health care professionals, and when to withhold notes. Of the 41 staff members at child and adolescent specialist mental health care clinics, 60% or more agreed with the 17 recommendations. No consensus was reached regarding the age at which adolescents should receive digital access to their notes and the timing of digitally sharing notes with parents.

Conclusions

A total of 17 recommendations related to key aspects of health care professionals' digital sharing of notes with adolescents in mental health care achieved consensus. Health care professionals can use these recommendations to guide their practice of sharing notes with adolescents in mental health care. However, the effects and experiences of following these recommendations should be tested in clinical practice.

[Attitudes and Expectations of Psychological and Medical Psychotherapists Towards Open Notes: Analysis of Qualitative Survey Responses]

OBJECTIVE

This study explores attitudes and expectations of psychotherapists (PT) towards the introduction of digital patient access to clinical notes ("Open Notes"; ON)), including the advantages and disadvantages in psychotherapeutic practice.

METHODS

As part of the PEPPPSY study, an online survey was conducted. Free text responses (n = 107) were qualitatively analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

129 psychological and medical PT took part in the survey. PT saw advantages such as transparency and patient-centred documentation, but feared disadvantages for the therapeutic relationship and an increased workload through the implementation of ON. Concerns were raised about data security and negative effects on treatment. Recommendations for implementation include patient-specific access adaptations and guided access.

CONCLUSION

PT are ambivalent about ON. Further research and guidelines for the use of ON in psychotherapy are needed.

Psychiatrists' experiences and opinions of generative artificial intelligence in mental healthcare: An online mixed methods survey

Following the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022, interest in large language model (LLM)-powered chatbots has surged with increasing focus on the clinical potential of these tools. Missing from this discussion, however, are the perspectives of physicians. The current study aimed to explore psychiatrists' experiences and opinions on this new generation of chatbots in mental health care. An online survey including both quantitative and qualitative responses was distributed to a non-probability sample of psychiatrists affiliated with the American Psychiatric Association. Findings revealed 44 % of psychiatrists had used OpenAI's ChatGPT-3.5 and 33 % had used GPT-4.0 "to assist with answering clinical questions." Administrative tasks were cited as a major benefit of these tools: 70 % somewhat agreed/agreed "documentation will be/is more efficient". Three in four psychiatrists (75 %) somewhat agreed/agreed "the majority of their patients will consult these tools before first seeing a doctor". Nine in ten somewhat agreed/agreed that clinicians need more support/training in understanding these tools. Open-ended responses reflected these opinions but respondents also expressed divergent opinions on the value of generative AI in clinical practice, including its impact on the future of the profession.

Generative Language Models and Open Notes: Exploring the Promise and Limitations

Patients' online record access (ORA) is growing worldwide. In some countries, including the United States and Sweden, access is advanced with patients obtaining rapid access to their full records on the web including laboratory and test results, lists of prescribed medications, vaccinations, and even the very narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, commonly referred to as "open notes"). In the United States, patient's ORA is also available in a downloadable form for use with other apps. While survey studies have shown that some patients report many benefits from ORA, there remain challenges with implementation around writing clinical documentation that patients may now read. With ORA, the functionality of the record is evolving; it is no longer only an aide memoire for doctors but also a communication tool for patients. Studies suggest that clinicians are changing how they write documentation, inviting worries about accuracy and completeness. Other concerns include work burdens; while few objective studies have examined the impact of ORA on workload, some research suggests that clinicians are spending more time writing notes and answering queries related to patients' records. Aimed at addressing some of these concerns, clinician and patient education strategies have been proposed. In this viewpoint paper, we explore these approaches and suggest another longer-term strategy: the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) to support clinicians in documenting narrative summaries that patients will find easier to understand. Applied to narrative clinical documentation, we suggest that such approaches may significantly help preserve the accuracy of notes, strengthen writing clarity and signals of empathy and patient-centered care, and serve as a buffer against documentation work burdens. However, we also consider the current risks associated with existing generative AI. We emphasize that for this innovation to play a key role in ORA, the cocreation of clinical notes will be imperative. We also caution that clinicians will need to be supported in how to work alongside generative AI to optimize its considerable potential.

Open notes in psychotherapy: An exploratory mixed methods survey of psychotherapy students in Switzerland

Background

In a growing number of countries, patients are offered access to their full online clinical records, including the narrative reports written by clinicians (the latter, referred to as "open notes"). Even in countries with mature patient online record access, access to psychotherapy notes is not mandatory. To date, no research has explored the views of psychotherapy trainees about open notes.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the opinions of psychotherapy trainees in Switzerland about patients' access to psychotherapists' free-text summaries.

Methods

We administered a web-based mixed methods survey to 201 psychotherapy trainees to explore their familiarity with and opinions about the impact on patients and psychotherapy practice of offering patients online access to their psychotherapy notes. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 42-item survey, and qualitative descriptive analysis was employed to examine written responses to four open-ended questions.

Results

Seventy-two (35.8%) trainees completed the survey. Quantitative results revealed mixed views about open notes. 75% agreed that, in general open notes were a good idea, and 94.1% agreed that education about open notes should be part of psychotherapy training. When considering impact on patients and psychotherapy, four themes emerged: (a) negative impact on therapy; (b) positive impact on therapy; (c) impact on patients; and (d) documentation. Students identified concerns related to increase in workload, harm to the psychotherapeutic relationship, and compromised quality of records. They also identified many potential benefits including better patient communication and informed consent processes. In describing impact on different therapy types, students believed that open notes might have differential impact depending on the psychotherapy approaches.

Conclusions

Sharing psychotherapy notes is not routine but is likely to expand. This mixed methods study provides timely insights into the views of psychotherapy trainees regarding the impact of open notes on patient care and psychotherapy practice.

Users' Experiences With Online Access to Electronic Health Records in Mental and Somatic Health Care: Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) hold promise for empowering patients, but their impact may vary between mental and somatic health care. Medical professionals and ethicists have expressed concerns about the potential challenges of PAEHRs for patients, especially those receiving mental health care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to investigate variations in the experiences of online access to electronic health records (EHRs) among persons receiving mental and somatic health care, as well as to understand how these experiences and perceptions vary among those receiving mental health care at different levels of point of care.

METHODS

Using Norwegian data from the NORDeHEALTH 2022 Patient Survey, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive analysis of service use and perceptions of perceived mistakes, omissions, and offensive comments by mental and somatic health care respondents. Content analysis was used to analyze free-text responses to understand how respondents experienced the most serious errors in their EHR.

RESULTS

Among 9505 survey participants, we identified 2008 mental health care respondents and 7086 somatic health care respondents. A higher percentage of mental health care respondents (1385/2008, 68.97%) reported that using PAEHR increased their trust in health care professionals compared with somatic health care respondents (4251/7086, 59.99%). However, a significantly larger proportion (P<.001) of mental health care respondents (976/2008, 48.61%) reported perceiving errors in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents (1893/7086, 26.71%). Mental health care respondents also reported significantly higher odds (P<.001) of identifying omissions (758/2008, 37.75%) and offensive comments (729/2008, 36.3%) in their EHR compared with the somatic health care group (1867/7086, 26.35% and 826/7086, 11.66%, respectively). Mental health care respondents in hospital inpatient settings were more likely to identify errors (398/588, 67.7%; P<.001) and omissions (251/588, 42.7%; P<.001) than those in outpatient care (errors: 422/837, 50.4% and omissions: 336/837, 40.1%; P<.001) and primary care (errors: 32/100, 32% and omissions: 29/100, 29%; P<.001). Hospital inpatients also reported feeling more offended (344/588, 58.5%; P<.001) by certain content in their EHR compared with respondents in primary (21/100, 21%) and outpatient care (287/837, 34.3%) settings. Our qualitative findings showed that both mental and somatic health care respondents identified the most serious errors in their EHR in terms of medical history, communication, diagnosis, and medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Most mental and somatic health care respondents showed a positive attitude toward PAEHRs. However, mental health care respondents, especially those with severe and chronic concerns, expressed a more critical attitude toward certain content in their EHR compared with somatic health care respondents. A PAEHR can provide valuable information and foster trust, but it requires careful attention to the use of clinical terminology to ensure accurate, nonjudgmental documentation, especially for persons belonging to health care groups with unique sensitivities.

Errors, Omissions, and Offenses in the Health Record of Mental Health Care Patients: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Sweden

BACKGROUND

Previous research reports that patients with mental health conditions experience benefits, for example, increased empowerment and validation, from reading their patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs). In mental health care (MHC), PAEHRs remain controversial, as health care professionals are concerned that patients may feel worried or offended by the content of the notes. Moreover, existing research has focused on specific mental health diagnoses, excluding the larger PAEHR userbase with experience in MHC.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to establish if and how the experiences of patients with and those without MHC differ in using their PAEHRs by (1) comparing patient characteristics and differences in using the national patient portal between the 2 groups and (2) establishing group differences in the prevalence of negative experiences, for example, rates of errors, omissions, and offenses between the 2 groups.

METHODS

Our analysis was performed on data from an online patient survey distributed through the Swedish national patient portal as part of our international research project, NORDeHEALTH. The respondents were patient users of the national patient portal 1177, aged 15 years or older, and categorized either as those with MHC experience or with any other health care experience (nonmental health care [non-MHC]). Patient characteristics such as gender, age, education, employment, and health status were gathered. Portal use characteristics included frequency of access, encouragement to read the record, and instances of positive and negative experiences. Negative experiences were further explored through rates of error, omission, and offense. The data were summarized through descriptive statistics. Group differences were analyzed through Pearson chi-square.

RESULTS

Of the total sample (N=12,334), MHC respondents (n=3131) experienced errors (1586/3131, 50.65%, and non-MHC 3311/9203, 35.98%), omissions (1089/3131, 34.78%, and non-MHC 2427/9203, 26.37%) and offenses (1183/3131, 37.78%, and non-MHC 1616/9203, 17.56%) in the electronic health record at a higher rate than non-MHC respondents (n=9203). Respondents reported that the identified error (MHC 795/3131, 50.13%, and non-MHC 1366/9203, 41.26%) and omission (MHC 622/3131, 57.12%, and non-MHC 1329/9203, 54.76%) were "very important," but most did nothing to correct them (MHC 792/3131, 41.29%, and non-MHC 1838/9203, 42.17%). Most of the respondents identified as women in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

About 1 in 2 MHC patients identified an error in the record, and about 1 in 3 identified an omission, both at a much higher rate than in the non-MHC group. Patients with MHC also felt offended by the content of the notes more commonly (1 in 3 vs 1 in 6). These findings validate some of the worries expressed by health care professionals about providing patients with MHC with PAEHRs and highlight challenges with the documentation quality in the records.

Changes in Documentation Due to Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: Protocol for a Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Internationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a "dumbing down" of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs.

OBJECTIVE

This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs.

METHODS

This scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs' documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included.

RESULTS

The results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/46722.

Patient Online Record Access in English Primary Care: Qualitative Survey Study of General Practitioners' Views

BACKGROUND

In 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").

METHODS

In March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.

Writing Notes, Thinking About People

In 2021, a research group led by Jenny Park published a qualitative study of 600 medical encounter notes written by 138 physicians.² The researchers found some language that conveyed positive regard, was clearly informative, and effective, while also discovering at least 5 ways in which doctors expressed negative feelings toward their patients. Their paper highlights phrases that convey incredulity ("he claims that nicotine patches don't work for him"), disapproval, stereotyping, and the extent to which providers find patients difficult. They also note diction that emphasizes physician authority and unilateral opposed to shared decision making ("She was told to discontinue…" or "I have instructed him to…"). In their paper, Park's group cautions that, although in and of itself, positive or negative language may not be harmful in the care of individuals, at least 1 study has shown that where dismissive language is used, physicians are less likely to adhere to appropriate guidelines.³.

Sharing online clinical notes with patients: implications for nocebo effects and health equity

Patients in around 20 countries worldwide are now offered online access to at least some of their medical records. Access includes test results, medication lists, referral information, and/or the very words written by clinicians (so-called 'open notes'). In this paper, I discuss the possibility of one unintended negative consequence of patient access to their clinical notes-the potential to increase 'nocebo effects'. A growing body of research shows that nocebo effects arise by engaging perceptual and cognitive processes that influence negative expectancies, and as a consequence, adverse health effects. Studies show that increased awareness about the side effects of medications, the framing of information and the socioemotional context of care can increase the risk of nocebo effects. Connecting research into the nocebo effect with open notes provides preliminary support for the hypothesis that patient access to clinical notes might be a forum for facilitating unwanted nocebo effects. Furthermore, current findings indicate that we might expect to see systematic differences in how nocebo effects are experienced among different patient populations. The ethical implications of the tension between transparency and the potential for harm are discussed, with an emphasis on what open notes might mean for justice and equity in clinical care for a range of already marginalised patient populations. I argue that to resolve these challenges does not thereby justify 'closed notes', and conclude with suggestions for how health systems and clinicians might adapt to this innovation to reduce the risk of potential nocebo effects arising via this novel route.

Evaluation of cognitive, mental, and sleep patterns of post-acute COVID-19 patients and their correlation with thorax CT

Objective

In this study, we have evaluated the cognitive, mental, and sleep patterns of post-COVID patients 2 months after their hospitalization, and after scoring their hospitalization thorax CTs, we have compared the degree of the lung involvement with cognitive and mental states of the patients.

Materials and methods

Forty post-COVID patients were included in our study. Patients who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 and who had thorax CT scan at the admission were included in the study. Thorax CT scans of the patients were scored using chest severity scoring (CT-SS). The Mini-Mental State Examination test (MMSE), the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and the Hamilton Depression and Hamilton Anxiety scales of all the participants were evaluated by the same person.

Results

Early stage cognitive impairment was detected in 15% of post-COVID patients in the MMSE test and mean MMSE test score was 26.9 ± 2.1. The MoCA test detected cognitive impairment in 55% of the patients, and the mean MoCA score was 19.6 ± 5.2. Furthermore, all patients showed depressive symptoms in Hamilton Depression Scoring System and 57.5% of the patients showed anxiety symptoms in the Hamilton Anxiety Scoring System. The mean Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index of the patients was 10.7 ± 3.1, and it was found to be higher than normal. The mean CT-SS scores, which used to evaluate the lung involvement, of the patients were 4.7 ± 5.6. We did not find any correlation between patients’ cognitive tests and CT-SS scores.

Conclusion

When these results are taken into consideration, our study has shown that the neuropsychiatric symptoms of the patients who had COVID-19 continued even after 2 months of their illness. Therefore, long-term rehabilitation of these patients, including cognitive education and psychological services, should be continued.

Implementing Machine Learning Models for Suicide Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice: Focus Group Study With Hospital Providers

Background

Interest in developing machine learning models that use electronic health record data to predict patients’ risk of suicidal behavior has recently proliferated. However, whether and how such models might be implemented and useful in clinical practice remain unknown. To ultimately make automated suicide risk–prediction models useful in practice, and thus better prevent patient suicides, it is critical to partner with key stakeholders, including the frontline providers who will be using such tools, at each stage of the implementation process.

Objective

The aim of this focus group study is to inform ongoing and future efforts to deploy suicide risk–prediction models in clinical practice. The specific goals are to better understand hospital providers’ current practices for assessing and managing suicide risk; determine providers’ perspectives on using automated suicide risk–prediction models in practice; and identify barriers, facilitators, recommendations, and factors to consider.

Methods

We conducted 10 two-hour focus groups with a total of 40 providers from psychiatry, internal medicine and primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology departments within an urban academic medical center. Audio recordings of open-ended group discussions were transcribed and coded for relevant and recurrent themes by 2 independent study staff members. All coded text was reviewed and discrepancies were resolved in consensus meetings with doctoral-level staff.

Results

Although most providers reported using standardized suicide risk assessment tools in their clinical practices, existing tools were commonly described as unhelpful and providers indicated dissatisfaction with current suicide risk assessment methods. Overall, providers’ general attitudes toward the practical use of automated suicide risk–prediction models and corresponding clinical decision support tools were positive. Providers were especially interested in the potential to identify high-risk patients who might be missed by traditional screening methods. Some expressed skepticism about the potential usefulness of these models in routine care; specific barriers included concerns about liability, alert fatigue, and increased demand on the health care system. Key facilitators included presenting specific patient-level features contributing to risk scores, emphasizing changes in risk over time, and developing systematic clinical workflows and provider training. Participants also recommended considering risk-prediction windows, timing of alerts, who will have access to model predictions, and variability across treatment settings.

Conclusions

Providers were dissatisfied with current suicide risk assessment methods and were open to the use of a machine learning–based risk-prediction system to inform clinical decision-making. They also raised multiple concerns about potential barriers to the usefulness of this approach and suggested several possible facilitators. Future efforts in this area will benefit from incorporating systematic qualitative feedback from providers, patients, administrators, and payers on the use of these new approaches in routine care, especially given the complex, sensitive, and unfortunately still stigmatized nature of suicide risk.

Usability of the Swedish Accessible Electronic Health Record: a Qualitative Study (Preprint)

Background

Patient portals are increasingly being implemented worldwide to ensure that patients have timely access to their health data, including patients’ access to their electronic health records. In Sweden, the e-service Journalen is a national patient-accessible electronic health record (PAEHR), accessible on the web through the national patient portal. User characteristics and perceived benefits of using a PAEHR will influence behavioral intentions to use and adoption; however, poor usability, which increases effort expectancy, may have a negative impact. Therefore, it is of interest to further explore how users of the PAEHR Journalen perceive its usability and usefulness.

Objective

On the basis of the analysis of the survey respondents’ experiences of the usability of the Swedish PAEHR, this study aimed to identify specific usability problems that may need to be addressed in the future.

Methods

A survey study was conducted to elicit opinions and experiences of patients using Journalen. Data were collected from June to October 2016. The questionnaire included a free-text question regarding the usability of the system, and the responses were analyzed using content analysis with a sociotechnical framework as guidance when grouping identified usability issues.

Results

During the survey period, 423,141 users logged into Journalen, of whom 2587 (0.61%) completed the survey (unique users who logged in; response rate 0.61%). Of the 2587 respondents, 186 (7.19%) provided free-text comments on the usability questions. The analysis resulted in 19 categories, which could be grouped under 7 of the 8 dimensions in the sociotechnical framework of Sittig and Singh. The most frequently mentioned problems were related to regional access limitations, structure and navigation of the patient portal, and language and understanding.

Conclusions

Although the survey respondents, who were also end users of the PAEHR Journalen, were overall satisfied with its usability, they also experienced important challenges when accessing their records. For all patients to be able to reap the benefits of record access, it is essential to understand both the usability challenges they encounter and, more broadly, how policies, regulations, and technical implementation decisions affect the usefulness of record access. The results presented here are specific to the Swedish PAEHR Journalen but also provide important insights into how design and implementation of record access can be improved in any context.

The 21st Century Cures Act and Emergency Medicine - Part 1: Digitally Sharing Notes and Results

Among the provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act is the mandate for digital sharing of clinician notes and test results through the patient portal of the clinician's electronic health record system. Although there is considerable evidence of the benefit to clinic patients from open notes and minimal apparent additional burden to primary care clinicians, emergency department (ED) note sharing has not been studied. With easier access to notes and results, ED patients may have an enhanced understanding of their visit, findings, and clinician's medical decisionmaking, which may improve adherence to recommendations. Patients may also seek clarifications and request edits to their notes. EDs can develop workflows to address patient concerns without placing new undue burden on clinicians, helping to realize the benefits of sharing notes and test results digitally.

The benefits and harms of open notes in mental health: A Delphi survey of international experts

IMPORTANCE

As of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.

OBJECTIVE

To solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.

DESIGN

An online 3-round Delphi poll.

SETTING

Online.

PARTICIPANTS

International experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.

MAIN OUTCOMES, AND MEASURES

An expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.

RESULTS

A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items: 42 potential benefits, and 48 potential harms. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items. There was consensus that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients' understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments, and that access could enhance patient recall and sense of empowerment. Experts also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization. However, panelists predicted there could be an increase in patients demanding changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians would be less detailed/accurate in documentation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.

Patients' Access to Their Psychiatric Notes: Current Policies and Practices in Sweden

Patients’ access to electronic health records (EHRs) is debated worldwide, and access to psychiatry records is even more criticized. There is a nationwide service in Sweden which offers all citizens the opportunity to read their EHR, including clinical notes. This study aims to explore Swedish national and local policy regulations regarding patients’ access to their psychiatric notes and describe to what extent patients currently are offered access to them. The rationale behind the study is that current policies and current practices may differ between the 21 self-governing regions, although there is a national regulation. We gathered web-based information from policy documents and regulations from each region’s website. We also conducted key stakeholder interviews with respondents from the regions and cross-regional private care providers, using a qualitative approach. The results show that 17 of 21 regions share psychiatric notes with patients, where forensic psychiatric care was the most excluded psychiatric care setting. All private care providers reported that they mainly follow the regions’ guidelines. Our findings show that regional differences concerning sharing psychiatric notes persist, despite Swedish regulations and a national policy that stipulates equal care for everyone. The differences, however, appear to have decreased over time, and we report evidence that the regions are moving toward increased transparency for psychiatry patients.

Supporting the use of patient portals in mental health settings: a scoping review

With the increased use of patient portals in acute and chronic care settings as a strategy to support patient care and improve patient-centric care, there is still little known about the impact of patient portals in mental health contexts. The purposes of this review were to: 1) identify the critical success factors for successful patient portal implementation and adoption among end-users that could be utilized in a mental health setting; 2) uncover what we know about existing mental health portals and their effectiveness for end-users; and 3) determine what indicators are being used to evaluate existing patient portals for end-users that may be applied in a mental health context. This scoping review was conducted through a search of six electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for articles published between 2007 and 2021. A total of 31 articles were included in the review. Critical success factors of patient portal implementation included those related to education, usefulness, usability, culture, and resources. Only two patient portals had articles published related to their effectiveness for end-users (one in Canada and the other in the United States). More than 100 measures of process (n = 73) and outcome (n = 59) indicators were extracted from the studies and mapped to the Benefits Evaluation Framework. Patient portals carry great potential to improve patient care, but more attention needs to be given to ensure they are being evaluated through the development and implementation phases with the end-users in mind. Further understanding of process indicators relating to use are essential for long-term patient adoption of portals to obtain their potential benefits.

Patients, clinicians and open notes: information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice

In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians ('open notes'). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. 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.

Preparing Patients and Clinicians for Open Notes in Mental Health: Qualitative Inquiry of International Experts

BACKGROUND

In a growing number of countries worldwide, clinicians are sharing mental health notes, including psychiatry and psychotherapy notes, with patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to solicit the views of experts on provider policies and patient and clinician training or guidance in relation to open notes in mental health care.

METHODS

In August 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of international experts on the practice of sharing mental health notes. Experts were identified as informaticians, clinicians, chief medical information officers, patients, and patient advocates who have extensive research knowledge about or experience of providing access to or having access to mental health notes. This study undertook a qualitative descriptive analysis of experts' written responses and opinions (comments) to open-ended questions on training clinicians, patient guidance, and suggested policy regulations.

RESULTS

A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded. We identified four major themes related to opening mental health notes to patients: the need for clarity about provider policies on exemptions, providing patients with basic information about open notes, clinician training in writing mental health notes, and managing patient-clinician disagreement about mental health notes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides timely information on policy and training recommendations derived from a wide range of international experts on how to prepare clinicians and patients for open notes in mental health. The results of this study point to the need for further refinement of exemption policies in relation to sharing mental health notes, guidance for patients, and curricular changes for students and clinicians as well as improvements aimed at enhancing patient and clinician-friendly portal design.

Patient Access to Mental Health Notes: Motivating Evidence-Informed Ethical Guidelines

ABSTRACT

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 (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-02224.pdf#page=99). Against these policy changes, only limited attention has been paid to the ethical question about whether patients with mental health conditions should access their notes, as mentioned in the articles by Strudwick, Yeung, and Gratzer (Front Psychiatry 10:917, 2019) and Blease, O'Neill, Walker, Hägglund, and Torous (Lancet Psychiatry 7:924-925, 2020). In this article, our goal is to motivate further inquiry into opening mental health notes to patients, particularly among persons with serious mental illness and those accessing psychological treatments. Using biomedical ethical principles to frame our discussion, we identify key empirical questions that must be pursued to inform ethical practice guidelines.

Sharing Notes With Adolescents and Young Adults Admitted to an Inpatient Psychiatry Unit

Since its inception in 2012, the OpenNotes initiative has been broadly adopted by medical institutions across the nation, giving more than 40 million patients access to their medical documentation.¹ The response to this access has been overwhelmingly positive, as providers and adult patients report increased trust, transparency, and collaboration.² In contrast, the benefits of OpenNotes have yet to be realized among pediatric and adolescent patients. Since February 2018, our pediatric institution has default released medical notes to patients aged 12 years and older. Currently, 90% of medical notes are shared with adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients; however, medical documentation is withheld from those in care settings regarded as vulnerable (ie, psychiatry, child abuse) or if the provider deems the content sensitive. We previously demonstrated adequate comprehension and satisfaction with medical documentation among AYA patients seen at a pediatric gastroenterology clinic.³ However, confidentiality concerns persist among providers, especially those working within mental health settings.⁴.

Healthcare in the new age of transparency

Debates around access to and ownership of an individual's digital information have taken center stage in health care. A decade ago, the idea of offering patients ready access to their clinical notes was a fringe idea. Today, information transparency in health care is a pressing legislative and regulatory issue in the United States and elsewhere. The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires that clinicians and health care organizations give patients electronic access to the information in their electronic medical records. Rules to enact this legislative priority by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services substantially expanded the types of information that must be easily accessible to patients and exchanged among clinicians in electronic form. A growing body of research supports the notion that sharing transparent medical records, including clinical notes with patients, can help to strengthen communication, trust in clinicians, and patient engagement. Patients receiving dialysis may receive particular benefits from this greater transparency due to their increased risk for fragmented care. In the paper, we review the decade of research focused on the effects of sharing clinical notes with patients and the implications for improved engagement and care.

Sharing clinical notes, and placebo and nocebo effects: Can documentation affect patient health?

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. We propose 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. We conclude with actionable proposals for testing our understanding of the health effects of access to visit notes.