ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Changes in Documentation After Implementing Open Notes in Mental Health Care: Pre-Post Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Transparency : Ethical Note Obligations, Documentation Burden, and the Ethical Adoption of AI-Assisted Documentation.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- An Evaluation of AI-Generated Clinical Notes in the OpenNotes Era: A Thematic Analysis of Clinician Discourse.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- A multi-metric evaluation of readability in psychiatric discharge summaries.BioData mining · 2026Article
- Open Notes in Mental Health: A Scoping Review of Stakeholder Experiences and Implications for Clinical Practice.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe practice of providing patients with digital access to clinical narrative documentation by health care professionals (HCPs) is known as open notes. In mental health care, this innovation has the potential to increase transparency and foster greater trust in the treatment process. While open notes may improve the quality of care and patient engagement, some HCPs are concerned that they may change the nature of clinical documentation and compromise its quality.
objectiveThis study aims to examine potential objective and subjective changes in clinical documentation following the implementation of open notes.
methodsClinical notes written before and after the implementation of a patient portal with open notes function in 3 psychiatric outpatient clinics in Germany were collected. A total of 876 notes (453 prenotes and 423 postnotes) were rated on 16 linguistic features using a Likert scale. Differences were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. In addition, 10 in-depth qualitative interviews with psychiatric HCPs were conducted and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsPostimplementation significant differences were found in several linguistic features: Monoglossic (P=.002), incomprehensible (P<.001), demeaning (P<.001), stigmatizing (P<.001), factual (P<.001), and controlling (P=.002) language decreased, while comprehensible (P<.001), resource-oriented (P<.001), heteroglossic (P<.001), personal (P<.001), and emotional positive (P=.047) language increased. Interviewed HCPs reported noticeable changes in both their clinical notes and documentation practices. They described reducing the use of medical jargon, providing more detailed explanations, and tailoring documentation to better meet patient needs, resulting in slightly longer notes. However, in the subjective perception of the HCPs, the information they documented in the clinical notes remained mostly the same. HCPs noted an increase in time and workload associated with the new documentation approach, partly due to the workflow adjustments required to adapt to open notes.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically analyze quantitative documentation changes in the field of mental health. The implementation of open notes seems to result in both objective and subjective changes in clinical documentation and documentation practices. Quantitative and qualitative findings from our study suggest that HCPs generally strove to create more patient-friendly notes. In practice, this may benefit both patients and the therapeutic relationship. For open notes to be sustainable in practice, they must be seamlessly and efficiently integrated into HCPs' daily workflows. This requires not only structural changes, but also educating HCPs-both during their training and in clinical practice-on how to write open notes in a way that is both effective and patient-friendly.
trial registrationGerman Register of Clinical Studies DRKS00030188; https://tinyurl.com/mum4djbe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.