Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32219406›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2020

The Views and Experiences of Clinicians Sharing Medical Record Notes With Patients.

Catherine M DesRoches, Suzanne Leveille, Sigall K Bell, Zhiyong J Dong, Joann G Elmore, Leonor Fernandez, Kendall Harcourt, Patricia Fitzgerald, Thomas H Payne, Rebecca Stametz and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
–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

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Editorial: How to Make the Most of Open Notes.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024
    Article
  20. Article

7 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

12 authors.

Catherine M DesRochesHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Suzanne LeveilleHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sigall K BellHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Zhiyong J DongBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Joann G ElmoreDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Leonor FernandezHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Kendall HarcourtBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Patricia FitzgeraldBeth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Thomas H PayneUniversity of Washington, UW Medicine, Seattle.
Rebecca StametzSteele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania.
Tom DelbancoHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jan WalkerHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires that patients be given electronic access to all the information in their electronic medical records. The regulations for implementation of this law give patients far easier access to information about their care, including the notes their clinicians write. Objective: To assess clinicians' views and experiences with sharing clinical notes (open notes) with patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Web-based survey study of physicians, advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, and therapists at 3 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; and rural Pennsylvania where notes have been shared across all outpatient specialties for at least 4 years. Participants were clinicians in hospital-based offices and community practices who had written at least 1 note opened by a patient in the year prior to the survey, which was administered from May 21, 2018, to August 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of sharing clinical notes with patients. Results: Invitations were sent to 6064 clinicians; 1628 (27%) responded. Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be female (65% vs 55%) and to be younger (mean [SD] age, 42.1 [12.6] vs 44.9 [12.7] years). The majority of respondents were physicians (951 [58%]), female (1023 [65%]), licensed to practice in 2000 or later (940 [61%]), and spent fewer than 40 hours per week in direct patient care (1083 [71%]). Most viewed open notes positively, agreeing they are a good idea (1182 participants [74%]); of 1314 clinicians who were aware that patients were reading their notes, 965 (74%) agreed that open notes were useful for engaging patients. In all, 798 clinicians (61%) would recommend the practice to colleagues. A total of 292 physicians (37%) reported spending more time on documentation, and many reported specific changes in the way they write their notes, the most frequent of which related to use of language that could be perceived as critical of the patient (422 respondents [58%]). Most physicians (1234 [78%]) favored being able to determine readily that their notes had been read by their patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of clinicians in a wide range of specialties who had several years of experience offering their patients ready access to their notes, more than two-thirds supported this new practice. Even among subgroups of clinicians who were less enthusiastic, most endorsed the idea of sharing notes and believed the practice could be helpful for engaging patients more actively in their care.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsInformation DisseminationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdultAttitude of Health PersonnelFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID32219406
PMCPMC12124735

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.