Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39832175›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical education2025

Guidelines for Patient-Centered Documentation in the Era of Open Notes: Qualitative Study.

Anita Vanka, Katherine T Johnston, Tom Delbanco, Catherine M DesRoches, Annalays Garcia, Liz Salmi, Charlotte Blease

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Teaching Note Writing in the Age of AI: Three Practical Steps.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Anita VankaDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6536-6925
Katherine T JohnstonHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4543-2419
Tom DelbancoDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6755-9333
Catherine M DesRochesDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5373-855X
Annalays GarciaDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-2319-8259
Liz SalmiDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3798-7438
Charlotte BleaseDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-0205-1165

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients in the United States have recently gained federally mandated, free, and ready electronic access to clinicians' computerized notes in their medical records ("open notes"). This change from longstanding practice can benefit patients in clinically important ways, but studies show some patients feel judged or stigmatized by words or phrases embedded in their records. Therefore, it is imperative that clinicians adopt documentation techniques that help both to empower patients and minimize potential harms.

objectiveAt a time when open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians can spread more easily throughout medical practice, this inquiry aims to develop informed guidelines for documentation in medical records.

methodsThrough a series of focus groups, preliminary guidelines for documentation language in medical records were developed by health professionals and patients. Using a structured focus group decision guide, we conducted 4 group meetings with different sets of 27 participants: physicians experienced with writing open notes (n=5), patients accustomed to reviewing their notes (n=8), medical student educators (n=7), and resident physicians (n=7). To generate themes, we used an iterative coding process. First-order codes were grouped into second-order themes based on the commonality of meanings.

resultsThe participants identified 10 important guidelines as a preliminary framework for developing notes sensitive to patients' needs.

conclusionsThe process identified 10 discrete themes that can help clinicians use and spread patient-centered documentation.

Indexed as

DocumentationElectronic Health RecordsGuidelines as TopicPatient-Centered CareFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleQualitative ResearchUnited States21st Century Cures Actmedical student educationopen notespatient-centered documentation skills

Identifiers

PMID39832175
PMCPMC11791454

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.