Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38858711›Full record

ArticleBMC psychiatry2024

Psychiatrists' perceptions of conditions and consequences associated with the implementation of open notes: qualitative investigation.

Julian Schwarz, Cosima Hoetger, Lena-Sophie Pluschke, Felix Muehlensiepen, Michael Schneider, Samuel Thoma, Tobias Esch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Julian Schwarz *Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Center for Mental Health, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf, DE, Germany. julian.schwarz@mhb-fontane.de.
Cosima Hoetger *Institute for Integrative Health Care and Health Promotion (IGVF), Faculty of Health/School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Lena-Sophie PluschkeDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Center for Mental Health, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf, DE, Germany.
Felix MuehlensiepenFaculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School, Neuruppin, Germany.
Michael SchneiderDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Center for Mental Health, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf, DE, Germany.
Samuel ThomaDepartment of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Center for Mental Health, Immanuel Hospital Rüdersdorf, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Seebad 82/83, Rüdersdorf, DE, Germany.
Tobias EschInstitute for Integrative Health Care and Health Promotion (IGVF), Faculty of Health/School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn a growing list of countries, patients are granted access to their clinical notes ("open notes") as part of their online record access. Especially in the field of mental health, open notes remain controversial with some clinicians perceiving open notes as a tool for improving therapeutic outcomes by increasing patient involvement, while others fear that patients might experience psychological distress and perceived stigmatization, particularly when reading clinicians' notes. More research is needed to optimize the benefits and mitigate the risks.

methodsUsing a qualitative research design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists practicing in Germany, to explore what conditions they believe need to be in place to ensure successful implementation of open notes in psychiatric practice as well as expected subsequent changes to their workload and treatment outcomes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsWe interviewed 18 psychiatrists; interviewees believed four key conditions needed to be in place prior to implementation of open notes including careful consideration of (1) diagnoses and symptom severity, (2) the availability of additional time for writing clinical notes and discussing them with patients, (3) available resources and system compatibility, and (4) legal and data protection aspects. As a result of introducing open notes, interviewees expected changes in documentation, treatment processes, and doctor-physician interaction. While open notes were expected to improve transparency and trust, participants anticipated negative unintended consequences including the risk of deteriorating therapeutic relationships due to note access-related misunderstandings and conflicts.

conclusionPsychiatrists practiced in Germany where open notes have not yet been established as part of the healthcare data infrastructure. Interviewees were supportive of open notes but had some reservations. They found open notes to be generally beneficial but anticipated effects to vary depending on patient characteristics. Clear guidelines for managing access, time constraints, usability, and privacy are crucial. Open notes were perceived to increase transparency and patient involvement but were also believed to raise issues of stigmatization and conflicts.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPsychiatryQualitative ResearchAdultElectronic Health RecordsFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMental DisordersMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPsychiatristsClinical notesElectronic health recordsImplementationOnline record accessOpen notesOpennotesPatient participationPsychiatric careQualitative data

Identifiers

PMID38858711
PMCPMC11163720

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.