We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients’ access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety.
Blease, Charlotte
Knowledge, power, and patients: The ethics of open notes
But do patients really need access to their health information, or should electronic health records be the sole preserve of physicians? We explore this question using our own case studies.
Open Notes Become Law: A Challenge for Mental Health Practice
Although benefits to patients’ having access to psychiatric notes have been documented, early studies involved patients’ access to hard copies they often reviewed in the presence of mental health professionals. … Clinicians worry about possible harms, and in surveys, many psychiatrists anticipate that patients will become confused, get angry, or decompensate when reading their notes. However, experience challenges the assumption that mental health notes should remain segregated because these patients “cannot handle it.” … Both anecdotally and in surveys, fears among clinicians have largely been unrealized, and we are not aware of any reports of harm to or legal action from patients accessing their mental health notes.
Changes in Clinician attitudes toward Sharing visit Notes: Surveys Pre-and Post-Implementation
Following implementation, more primary and specialty care clinicians agreed that sharing notes with patients online was beneficial overall. Fewer had concerns about more time needed for office visits or documentation. Most thought patients would worry more and reported being less candid in documentation.
Preparing Patients and Clinicians for Open Notes in Mental Health: Qualitative Inquiry of International Experts
This 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.
Patient Access to Mental Health Notes: Motivating Evidence-Informed Ethical Guidelines
In the last decade, many health organizations have embarked on a revolution in clinical communication. Using electronic devices, patients can now gain rapid access to their online clinical records. Legally, patients in many countries already have the right to obtain copies of their health records; however, the practice known as “open notes” is different. Via secure online health portals, patients are now able to access their test results, lists of medications, and the very words that clinicians write about them. Open notes are growing with most patients in the Nordic countries already offered access to their full electronic record. From April 2021, a new federal ruling in the United States mandates—with few exemptions—that providers offer patients access to their online notes.
Association of Patients Reading Clinical Notes With Perception of Medication Adherence Among Persons With Serious Mental Illness
Surveys show that clinicians worry that patients with mental health diagnoses will become anxious, confused, or upset after reading their visit notes. In this study, we examined how patients with a mental illness diagnosis who read at least 1 clinical note in the last 12 months perceived how reading the note affected their adherence to prescribed medication.
U.S. policy requires immediate release of records to patients: Patients and clinicians should embrace the opportunities
On 5 April a new federal rule will require US healthcare providers to give patients access to all the health information in their electronic medical records without charge. This new information sharing rule from the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 mandates rapid, full access to test results, medication lists, referral information, and clinical notes in electronic formats, on request. The US is not alone in providing patients with full online access to their electronic health records. In Sweden, patients gained access to their records between 2012 and 2018. Estonian citizens have had full access since 2005. The sharing of personal health information isn’t without precedent in the US: around 55 million people already have access to their online clinical notes, and many more have access to laboratory results and other parts of their records. But for some US clinicians, the new rule may feel like a shock.
Don’t Fear Patients Reading Their Clinical Notes: Opinion
Doctors are learning about new rules coming this April that encourage open and transparent communication among patients, families, and clinicians. The rules, putting into effect the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act, mandate offering patients access to notes (“open notes”) written by clinicians in electronic medical records. … We believe that clinicians should embrace the spirit of the rules and view them also as HIPAA catching up with a computerized universe. As the new practice takes hold, ambiguities will diminish as further experience and research evolve. Warner Slack, the first doctor to ask patients to talk to computers, opined that patients are the “largest and least utilized resource in healthcare.” Open and transparent communication through electronic medical records may mobilize patients (and their families) far more effectively. Patients will almost certainly benefit. Remembering Slack’s prophecy, we believe that clinicians will too.
Does Patient Access to Clinical Notes Change Documentation?
A variety of surveys have been conducted into patients’ and doctors’ experiences of open notes but much less is understood about the objective changes in documentation that may arise as a result of patient access. We review current research into open notes including clinicians’ reports on how they have modified their notes as a result of implementing the practice. Highlighting the potentially beneficial and harmful effects that different types of documentation changes might have on the therapeutic relationship and on patient outcomes, we argue that more research is needed to investigate objective changes in notes as a result of patient access.
Except where otherwise noted, the content by OpenNotes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
