Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34611314›Full record

ArticleEye (London, England)2022

Risks and rewards of increasing patient access to medical records in clinical ophthalmology using OpenNotes.

Jake E Radell, Jasmine N Tatum, Chen-Tan Lin, Richard S Davidson, Jonathan Pell, Amber Sieja, Albert Y Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Editorial: How to Make the Most of Open Notes.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors.

Jake E Radell *Department of Ophthalmology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. Jake.Radell@icahn.mssm.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2779-9855
Jasmine N Tatum *Department of Psychiatry, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Chen-Tan LinDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Richard S DavidsonDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Jonathan PellDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Amber SiejaDepartment of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Albert Y WuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe implementation of OpenNotes and corresponding increase in patient access to medical records requires thorough assessment of the risks and benefits of note-sharing. Ophthalmology notes are unique among medical records in that they extensively utilize non-standardized abbreviations and drawings; they are often indecipherable even to highly-educated clinicians outside of ophthalmology. No studies to date have assessed ophthalmologist perceptions of OpenNotes.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted from 4/28 to 5/12/2016. A survey was distributed to 30 clinicians (25 ophthalmologists, three optometrists, two nurses) in the University of Colorado's Department of Ophthalmology to evaluate provider attitudes towards granting patients access to online medical records.

resultsMany clinicians felt patients would have difficulty understanding their records and may be unnecessarily alarmed or offended by them. Some clinicians worried their workload would increase and feared having to change the way they document. Perceived benefits of OpenNotes included improving patient understanding of their medical conditions, strengthening patient-physician trust, and enhancing patient care. Many perceived risks and benefits of note-sharing were associated with conceptions of the ideal clinician-patient relationship.

conclusionsClinicians in ophthalmology perceived both benefits and consequences of increasing patient access to ophthalmic records, and there were significant correlations between these perceptions and their conceptions of the clinician-patient relationship. This is the first study to assess potential ophthalmology provider attitudes toward sharing ophthalmic records. Although limited in sample size and power, this study demonstrates some ways patient-accessible ophthalmic records can affect the clinical practice of ophthalmology and emphasizes the unique challenges of OpenNotes in ophthalmology.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsOphthalmologyCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPhysician-Patient RelationsReward

Identifiers

PMID34611314
PMCPMC9500101

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.