Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33886028›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021

Changes in Clinician Attitudes Toward Sharing Visit Notes: Surveys Pre-and Post-Implementation.

James D Ralston, Onchee Yu, Robert B Penfold, Gabrielle Gundersen, Arvind Ramaprasan, Ellen M Schartz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Physicians' Perspectives on Inpatient Portals: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2022
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

6 authors.

James D RalstonKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA. James.D.Ralston@kp.org.ORCID 0000-0001-6317-7987
Onchee YuKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Robert B PenfoldKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Gabrielle GundersenKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Arvind RamaprasanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Ellen M SchartzKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinician perceptions before and after inviting patients to read office notes (open notes) are unknown.

objectiveTo describe changes in clinicians' attitudes about sharing notes with patients. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MAIN MEASURE: Survey of outpatient primary and specialty care clinicians who were from a large group practice and had one or more patients who accessed notes. The main outcome was percent change (before vs. after implementation) in clinician perception that online visit notes are beneficial overall. KEY

resultsOf the 563 invited clinicians, 400 (71%) took the baseline survey; 295 were eligible for a follow-up survey with 192 (65%) responding (119 primary care, 47 medical specialties, 26 surgical specialties). Before implementation, 29% agreed or somewhat agreed that visit notes online are beneficial overall, increasing to 71% following implementation (p<0.001); 44% switched beliefs from bad to good idea; and 2% reported the opposite change (p<0.001). This post-implementation change was observed in all clinician categories. Compared to pre-implementation, fewer clinicians had concerns about office visits taking longer (47% pre vs. 15% post) or requiring more time for questions (71% vs. 16%), or producing notes (57% vs. 28%). Before and after implementation, most clinicians reported being less candid in documentation (65% vs. 52%) and that patients would have more control of their care (72% vs. 78%) and worry more (72% vs. 65%).

conclusionsFollowing implementation, more primary and specialty care clinicians agreed that sharing notes with patients online was beneficial overall. Fewer had concerns about more time needed for office visits or documentation. Most thought patients would worry more and reported being less candid in documentation.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsAttitudeHumansPrimary Health CareSurveys and Questionnairesdocumentationoffice visitsphysician-patient relations

Identifiers

PMID33886028
PMCPMC8061150

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.