Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34747710›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

Jan Walker, Suzanne Leveille, Gila Kriegel, Chen-Tan Lin, Stephen K Liu, Thomas H Payne, Kendall Harcourt, Zhiyong Dong, Patricia Fitzgerald, Matthew Germak and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Care Partner Perspectives on the Use of a Patient Portal Intervention to Promote Care Partner Identification in Dementia Care.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Amend Notes as the Next Frontier of the OpenNotes Initiative.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

15 authors.

Jan WalkerDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9366-1200
Suzanne LeveilleDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0427-1580
Gila KriegelDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6937-7573
Chen-Tan LinSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8678-7945
Stephen K LiuGeneral Internal Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4219-7617
Thomas H PayneDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3416-5474
Kendall HarcourtDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7185-014X
Zhiyong DongDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5077-9230
Patricia FitzgeraldDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5479-7340
Matthew GermakPrimary Care, Beth Israel Lahey Health, Needham, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6331-3368
Lawrence MarksonClinical Information Systems, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7720-4683
Sara L JacksonDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1278-3693
Hannah ShucardDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7016-8202
Joann G ElmoreDavid Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7311-6835
Tom DelbancoDivision of General Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6755-9333

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSecure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes.

objectiveThis study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention.

methodsBefore scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements.

resultsForms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits.

conclusionsOurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsTelemedicineElectronic Health RecordsHumansPrimary Health CareSurveys and Questionnaireselectronic health recordmobile phonepatient portalphysician-patient relationsprevisit information

Identifiers

PMID34747710
PMCPMC8663611

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.