Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25352570›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2015

VA OpenNotes: exploring the experiences of early patient adopters with access to clinical notes.

Kim M Nazi, Carolyn L Turvey, Dawn M Klein, Timothy P Hogan, Susan S Woods

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kim M NaziVeterans and Consumers Health Informatics Office, Office of Informatics &Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, USA.
Carolyn L TurveyComprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa, USA Department of Psychiatry, The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Dawn M KleinComprehensive Access and Delivery Research and Evaluation (CADRE) Center, Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, Iowa, USA Department of Psychiatry, The University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa, USA.
Timothy P HoganCenter for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), A VA HSR&D Center of Innovation, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA National eHealth QUERI Coordinating Center, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, eHealth Quality Enhancement Research Initiative, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA.
Susan S WoodsVA Maine Healthcare System, Togus, Maine, USA Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo explore the experience of early patient adopters who accessed their clinical notes online using the Blue Button feature of the My HealtheVet portal.

methodsA web-based survey of VA patient portal users from June 22 to September 15, 2013.

results33.5% of respondents knew that clinical notes could be viewed, and nearly one in four (23.5%) said that they had viewed their notes at least once. The majority of VA Notes users agreed that accessing their notes will help them to do a better job of taking medications as prescribed (80.1%) and be better prepared for clinic visits (88.6%). Nine out of 10 users agreed that use of visit notes will help them understand their conditions better (91.8%), and better remember the plan for their care (91.9%). In contrast, 87% disagreed that VA Notes will make them worry more, and 88.4% disagreed that access to VA Notes will be more confusing than helpful. Users who had either contacted their provider or healthcare team (11.9%) or planned to (13.5%) primarily wanted to learn more about a health issue, medication, or test results (53.7%).

conclusionsInitial assessment of the patient experience within the first 9 months of availability provides evidence that patients both value and benefit from online access to clinical notes. These findings are congruent with OpenNotes study findings on a broader scale. Additional outreach and education is needed to enhance patient awareness. Healthcare professionals should author notes keeping in mind the opportunity patient access presents for enhanced communication.

Indexed as

Patient Access to RecordsVeteransAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAttitude to HealthData CollectionElectronic Health RecordsHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsaccesscommunicationeHealthOpen Notespatient portalveteran

Identifiers

PMID25352570
PMCPMC11749159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.