Impact on patient-provider relationship and documentation practices when mental health patients access their electronic health records online: a qualitative study among health professionals in an outpatient setting

What do patients know about their newly prescribed medication: Application of a novel knowledge index

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate patients' knowledge about their newly prescribed medications, contributing factors, and preferred sources of medication-related information.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study using an online survey was conducted among 931 customers of a mail-order pharmacy. Medication-related knowledge was examined using a novel knowledge index (KI) assessing medication dosage, indication, time of administration, and side effects. Patients' preferred sources of information were assessed. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed to investigate predictors of medication-related knowledge.

RESULTS

The average KI score was 2.97 (SD = 0.73); most participants answered correctly when asked about indication (94.2 %), dosage (90.0 %), and time of administration (92.3 %); however, knowledge of medication-related side effects was limited (23.1 %). KI scores were predicted by greater perceived informedness, younger age, and having received a medication plan (all ps < 0.05). Preferred sources of medication-related information included physicians, written information, and information obtained via secure electronic patient records.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge gaps were found for medication-related side effects. Insufficient medication-related knowledge is linked to non-adherence and subsequent personal and economic costs. Electronically issued information could provide a cost-effective solution. Practical applications including "OpenNotes" are discussed.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Issuing medication plans via platforms such as "OpenNotes" can increase patient understanding and participation, and decrease non-adherence.

Impact of Patient Online Record Access on Documentation: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Online record access (ORA) is being increasingly implemented internationally. Despite reported benefits for patients, health care professionals (HCPs) have raised concerns about potential disadvantages. To date, no review has examined the empirical evidence on whether and how documentation changes following the introduction of patients' ORA.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to examine potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs' documentation after using patients' ORA.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using a methodological framework for scoping reviews and data from 4 electronic databases. Studies examining objective and subjective changes in clinical documentation following the implementation of ORA, specifically those related to actual use experiences (rather than previous expectations), up to July 2023, were included. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included studies. The narrative synthesis and reporting of findings were guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews).

RESULTS

Of the 3143 papers screened, 42 (1.34%) were included in this review. The included studies mainly used qualitative methods and were predominantly published after 2016 in the United States. The included studies were conducted in different settings (inpatient and outpatient) and clinical areas (somatic, mental health, and other). In total, 8 studies analyzed clinical notes, while the remaining studies focused on the experiences of patients, HCPs, and other stakeholders with ORA. Objectively, a decrease in complexity, an increase in readability, and a change in the emotional tone of the clinical notes were observed. The length of the clinical notes was observed to change both objectively and subjectively, although the direction of this change was inconclusive. However, many HCPs also reported writing notes that were less open and more restrictive to protect sensitive or hypothetical information. While for some HCPs the implementation of ORA made the clinical notes a less efficient and valuable working tool, others perceived that ORA opened up new therapeutic opportunities through direct contact with patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The question of whether an inherently uniform clinical note can meet the diverse needs of different health care stakeholders remains unresolved, highlighting the challenges of standardizing practices in this complex sector. While ORA may encourage HCPs to make their clinical notes more patient friendly, it may also compromise the integrity of documentation by omitting sensitive findings and expert judgment, which can put patients at risk and lead to errors that increase the risk of malpractice. Given the limitations of digital documentation in fostering trust, it is imperative to prioritize meaningful patient-HCP interactions. The use of compensatory measures, such as parallel documentation and restricted access to clinical notes, indicates systemic problems and suggests that current practices are suboptimal.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.2196/46722.

Patient-Accessible Electronic Health Records and Information Practices in Mental Health Care Contexts: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Patients are increasingly being provided with access to their electronic health records. However, in mental health care contexts, concerns have been raised due to a perception that such access would pose risks to patients, third parties, and the therapeutic relationship. These perceived risks may affect the information practices of health care professionals (HCPs) and patients, such as how they document, share, and use information in mental health care services with a patient-accessible electronic health record (PAEHR). Although there is growing research interest in PAEHRs, no study has specifically examined how they impact information practices. Understanding the impacts on information practices may help explain other outcomes of implementing PAEHRs and inform their design.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to explore the research on PAEHRs in mental health care contexts and how PAEHRs affect information practices of HCPs and patients in this context.

METHODS

A scoping review was considered the most appropriate method due to the relatively recent adoption of PAEHRs in mental health care contexts and the heterogeneous nature of the evidence base. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted for original empirical studies that described the use of PAEHRs or associated systems in mental health care contexts. One author reviewed all full texts, with 3 other authors reviewing a subset of studies. The study characteristics and findings were documented, and a thematic synthesis and textual narrative analysis were used to develop descriptive and analytical themes that addressed the research questions.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were considered eligible and included in the analysis. The impact of PAEHRs on information practices in mental health care contexts included the following: (1) they may change how HCPs document patient information, including a reduction in detail and a focus on information perceived by HCPs as objective rather than subjective; (2) they may negatively impact workflows due to changes in documentation practices and limited guidance for HCPs on how to use PAEHRs; and (3) they may contribute to improved communication between HCPs and patients, including constructive disagreements regarding what is documented in the health record. The changes to HCP information practices were influenced by a concern for the therapeutic relationship and patient safety. Furthermore, PAEHRs supported new information practices for patients, such as using their PAEHR to prepare for clinical encounters.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified several ways in which PAEHRs shape the information practices of HCPs and patients in the mental health context. These findings can inform the design of PAEHRs to promote information practices that contribute to improving the quality of mental health care. Further research is necessary to understand how changes in information practices due to the implementation of PAEHRs impact clinical outcomes and patient experiences of care.

Preferences and expectations of end-users from a mental health educational portal: A qualitative study

Background

Digital technologies play an essential role in health systems by providing new solutions to reduce the burden of mental illnesses and disorders. However, in many cases, user preferences and expectations are not considered in the design of portals. This study aims to explore the preferences and expectations of end-users from the features and capabilities of mental health educational portals.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted from January 2022 to January 2023 using the conventional content analysis approach. The participants were 20 individuals, selected through purposive sampling, ranging in age from 18 to 61, all of whom had prior experience using an educational portal. Data were collected via individual semi-structured interviews. Qualitative analysis was performed using MAXQDA 10 software.

Results

After analyzing the data, the preferences and expectations of end-users were categorized into five main themes: to be reliable, mutual interaction capability, to be accessible, creating a stylish and attractive design, and attention to the quality and structure of the content.

Conclusion

Considering the expectations and needs of users will enhance their acceptance and satisfaction with the portals. From the end-users' perspectives, the content, appearance, and structural or technical features a mental health educational portal are crucial for its effectiveness.

Service Design and Evaluation of OpenNotes for Craniofacial Deformity Management in Patients and their Caregivers

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing OpenNotes in Korea. It involved developing and evaluating the Open-CHA service, which provides clinical summary information to patients diagnosed with craniofacial deformities and their caregivers following outpatient visits.

METHODS

The study included 109 patients diagnosed with craniofacial deformities, along with their caregivers. The Open-CHA service was developed by referencing OpenNotes and involved a user needs assessment, a pilot test, and an evaluation of its effectiveness. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the paired t-test.

RESULTS

Short message service templates for the Open-CHA service based on a user needs assessment conducted with patients, caregivers, and healthcare professionals. These templates were refined and improved following a pilot test. After the implementation of the Open-CHA service, most participants evaluated OpenNotes positively. Additionally, there were observed increases in health knowledge and efficacy in patient-physician interactions. A statistically significant improvement in mobile health literacy was also confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of the Open-CHA service significantly enhanced mobile health literacy among patients with craniofacial deformities and their caregivers, indicating positive outcomes for the potential adoption of OpenNotes in Korea. This suggests that introducing OpenNotes into the Korean healthcare system is appropriate.

Exploring potential drivers of patient engagement with their health data through digital platforms: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement when providing patient access to health data results from an interaction between the available tools and individual capabilities. The recent digital advancements of the healthcare field have altered the manifestation and importance of patient engagement. However, a comprehensive assessment of what factors contribute to patient engagement remain absent. In this review article, we synthesised the most frequently discussed factors that can foster patient engagement with their health data.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Relevant data were synthesized within 7 layers using a thematic analysis: (1) social and demographic factors, (2) patient ability factors, (3) patient motivation factors, (4) factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, (5) health system factors, (6) technological factors, and (7) policy factors.

RESULTS

We identified 5801 academic and 200 Gy literature records, and included 292 (4.83%) in this review. Overall, 44 factors that can affect patient engagement with their health data were extracted. We extracted 6 social and demographic factors, 6 patient ability factors, 12 patient motivation factors, 7 factors related to healthcare professionals' attitudes and skills, 4 health system factors, 6 technological factors, and 3 policy factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving patient engagement with their health data enables the development of patient-centered healthcare, though it can also exacerbate existing inequities. While expanding patient access to health data is an important step towards fostering shared decision-making in healthcare and subsequently empowering patients, it is important to ensure that these developments reach all sectors of the community.

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.

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.

Pre-implementation perceptions of clinicians regarding a patient portal in inpatient addictions settings: A qualitative descriptive study

BACKGROUND

Patient portals have been implemented in many organizations to support patient engagement and empowerment. However, their use in inpatient mental health and addiction settings is relatively new and has not been extensively studied. To address this gap, this study explored clinician perspectives of implementing a patient portal in inpatient addiction settings.

METHODS

The study followed qualitative descriptive methodology and used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to guide the research. Interviews were conducted with clinicians working in an inpatient addictions service at a large mental health and addictions teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Data analysis was performed using directed content analysis and the CFIR domains.

RESULTS

Twelve clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews. Participants included prescribers (such as physicians and nurse practitioners), registered nurses, allied health clinicians, and leadership. Participants had positive attitudes toward the patient portal, believing it would benefit patients and support consistency in healthcare. However, they also expressed reservations about its relevance and value during short inpatient admissions. Clinicians perceived the patient portal as compatible with existing workflows, enhancing patient empowerment and facilitating access to medical documentation. Concerns were raised about potential negative impacts on therapeutic rapport, particularly if patients disagreed with or were upset by the contents of their notes. Adaptations to the portal, such as improving documentation templates and providing detailed medication information, were suggested. Participants also highlighted advantages of the portal, including secure communication and access to laboratory results.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians generally had positive attitudes toward implementing a patient portal. However, concerns about maintaining therapeutic rapport and the relevance of information to patients were identified, and adaptations were suggested to improve the utility of a portal in the context of short inpatient stays. The findings provide insights into clinician perspectives and can inform the implementation of patient portals in inpatient addiction settings.

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.

Views on patient portal use for adolescents in mental health care - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Digitalization of health care has opened up for new ways to involve and engage patients. With this, increased attention has been put on digital patient portals. There exists some research on patient portals for adolescent patients in general and for adults in mental health care. However, no studies on patient portals for adolescents in mental health care have been identified in a recent review. The aim was therefore to explore the views on using patient portals for adolescents in mental health care among persons involved in and/or being affected by the introduction of a patient portal.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using individual semi-structured interviews with 14 persons who were healthcare providers in child and adolescent mental health care, young representatives from the user panel, or persons affiliated with an EHR-project introducing a patient portal. The main questions addressed their views on introducing patient portals for adolescents in mental health care and how patient portals and access to clinical notes can affect them and their treatment.

RESULTS

The findings were categorised into four main themes; "Does access to a patient portal help or harm adolescents?", "Who decides access?", "Mostly a political goal" and "Need for support and competency". Informants mentioned situations in which both adolescents' and parents' access to a patient portal could help adolescents in mental health care, but also where it could potentially harm their treatment and threaten confidentiality. Most informants thought that healthcare providers should have the autonomy to determine which information should be shared with whom, but also requested guidelines to ensure equal practice and support in difficult situations. Some perceived patient portals as the result of a political decision, rather than healthcare providers´ wishes, while others described it as a necessary development towards democratization.

CONCLUSION

The informants' views varied from thinking that a patient portal could support adolescents in mental health care, to worrying that it could be detrimental to the treatment. Informants emphasized that the management should facilitate training and support for healthcare providers in using patient portals and telehealth.