Search

There are concerns regarding whether patients with mental illness should be provided with access to their electronic medical records. This study compared perceptions of patients with (n = 400) and without (n = 2,134) a mental health diagnosis regarding access to primary care clinic notes through secure online portals. Eligible participants viewed at least 1 clinic note during a 12-month period. Administrative data were used to stratify patients by mental health diagnosis. As we hypothesized, patients with and without mental health diagnoses had similar perceptions about online access to notes.

ObjectiveChronic disease management can require daily attention, and increased levels of patient activation and engagement. We examined whether patients with diabetes perceive a greater benefit to having electronic access to their doctors' clinic notes compared to patients without diabetes. We hypothesized that easy electronic access to these notes may help patients with self-care by improving education and communication.MethodsSurvey of patients with and without diabetes in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania about perceptions of potential benefits and risks of reading their visit notes via an electronic patient information portal. Administrative data were used to identify patients with diabetes; we compared their perceptions to those of patients without diabetes.ResultsThe majority of patients (both with and without diabetes) perceived a positive impact of using the portal. Patients with diabetes were significantly more likely to believe that having access to and reading their notes would help them take their medication better and take better care of themselves.ConclusionsPatients with chronic diseases such as diabetes might receive an even greater benefit from access to their doctors' notes than the general patient population.Practice implicationsDoctors should encourage their patients with diabetes (or other chronic diseases) to use patient portals.

BackgroundDatabases of practicing physicians are important for studies that require sampling physicians or counting the physician population in a given area. However, little is known about how the three main sampling frames differ from each other.ObjectiveOur purpose was to compare the National Provider and Plan Enumeration System (NPPES), the American Medical Association Masterfile and the SK&A physician file.MethodsWe randomly sampled 3000 physicians from the NPPES (500 in six specialties). We conducted two- and three-way comparisons across three databases to determine the extent to which they matched on address and specialty. In addition, we randomly selected 1200 physicians (200 per specialty) for telephone verification.Key resultsOne thousand, six hundred and fifty-five physicians (55 %) were found in all three data files. The SK&A data file had the highest rate of missing physicians when compared to the NPPES, and varied by specialty (50 % in radiology vs. 28 % in cardiology). NPPES and SK&A had the highest rates of matching mailing address information, while the AMA Masterfile had low rates compared with the NPPES. We were able to confirm 65 % of physicians' address information by phone. The NPPES and SK&A had similar rates of correct address information in phone verification (72-94 % and 79-92 %, respectively, across specialties), while the AMA Masterfile had significantly lower rates of correct address information across all specialties (32-54 % across specialties).ConclusionsNone of the data files in this study were perfect; the fact that we were unable to reach one-third of our telephone verification sample is troubling. However, the study offers some encouragement for researchers conducting physician surveys. The NPPES and to a lesser extent, the SK&A file, appear to provide reasonably accurate, up-to-date address information for physicians billing public and provider insurers.

BackgroundIn a growing number of countries worldwide, clinicians are sharing mental health notes, including psychiatry and psychotherapy notes, with patients. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to solicit the views of experts on provider policies and patient and clinician training or guidance in relation to open notes in mental health care. MethodsIn August 2020, we conducted a web-based survey of international experts on the practice of sharing mental health notes. Experts were identified as informaticians, clinicians, chief medical information officers, patients, and patient advocates who have extensive research knowledge about or experience of providing access to or having access to mental health notes. This study undertook a qualitative descriptive analysis of experts’ written responses and opinions (comments) to open-ended questions on training clinicians, patient guidance, and suggested policy regulations. ResultsA total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded. We identified four major themes related to opening mental health notes to patients: the need for clarity about provider policies on exemptions, providing patients with basic information about open notes, clinician training in writing mental health notes, and managing patient-clinician disagreement about mental health notes. ConclusionsThis study provides timely information on policy and training recommendations derived from a wide range of international experts on how to prepare clinicians and patients for open notes in mental health. The results of this study point to the need for further refinement of exemption policies in relation to sharing mental health notes, guidance for patients, and curricular changes for students and clinicians as well as improvements aimed at enhancing patient and clinician-friendly portal design.

Background Patients and families are important contributors to the diagnostic team, but their perspectives are not reflected in current diagnostic measures. Patients/families can identify some breakdowns in the diagnostic process beyond the clinician's view. We aimed to develop a framework with patients/families to help organisations identify and categorise patient-reported diagnostic process-related breakdowns (PRDBs) to inform organisational learning. Method A multi-stakeholder advisory group including patients, families, clinicians, and experts in diagnostic error, patient engagement and safety, and user-centred design, co-developed a framework for PRDBs in ambulatory care. We tested the framework using standard qualitative analysis methods with two physicians and one patient coder, analysing 2165 patient-reported ambulatory errors in two large surveys representing 25 425 US respondents. We tested intercoder reliability of breakdown categorisation using the Gwet's AC1 and Cohen's kappa statistic. We considered agreement coefficients 0.61-0.8=good agreement and 0.81-1.00=excellent agreement. Results The framework describes 7 patient-reported breakdown categories (with 40 subcategories), 19 patient-identified contributing factors and 11 potential patient-reported impacts. Patients identified breakdowns in each step of the diagnostic process, including missing or inaccurate main concerns and symptoms; missing/outdated test results; and communication breakdowns such as not feeling heard or misalignment between patient and provider about symptoms, events, or their significance. The frequency of PRDBs was 6.4% in one dataset and 6.9% in the other. Intercoder reliability showed good-to-excellent reliability in each dataset: AC1 0.89 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.90) to 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); kappa 0.64 (95% CI 0.62, to 0.66) to 0.85 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.88). Conclusions The PRDB framework, developed in partnership with patients/families, can help organisations identify and reliably categorise PRDBs, including some that are invisible to clinicians; guide interventions to engage patients and families as diagnostic partners; and inform whole organisational learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was carried out to find out whether use of electronic health records in the U.S. contributed to efficient, safer and higher-quality care. Results revealed that policymakers in the U.S. faced many problems due to the minimal use of electronic health records and suggested the need to train technical support staff, provide finance and adopt interoperabilityto encourage the adoption of electronic-records in the U.S.

A study was conducted o determine the opinions of physicians in the U.S. on the potential of electronic health records for providing better health care and well as the advantages and drawbacks of the system. Results concluded that physicians who had adopted the system revealed it helped in providing improved health care and expressed satisfaction with the system.

The prevalence and characteristics of defensive medicine among physicians practicing in high-liability specialties during a period of substantial instability in the malpractice environment are studied. It is found that defensive medicine is highly prevalent among physicians in Pennsylvania who pay the most for liability insurance with potentially serious implications for cost, access, and both technical and interpersonal quality of care.