| 1. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
COVID-19 and Open Notes : A New Method to Enhance Patient Safety and Trust
- 2021
-
Ingår i: JMIR Mental Health. - : JMIR Publications. - 2368-7959. ; 8:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- From April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, all providers in the United States must offer patients access to the medical information housed in their electronic records. Via secure health portals, patients can log in to access lab and test results, lists of prescribed medications, referral appointments, and the narrative reports written by clinicians (so-called open notes). As US providers implement this practice innovation, we describe six promising ways in which patients' access to their notes might help address problems that either emerged with or were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Patients, clinicians and open notes : information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Journal of Medical Ethics. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0306-6800 .- 1473-4257. ; 48:10, s. 785-793
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians (’open notes’). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. 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.
|
|
| 5. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
Preparing Patients and Clinicians for Open Notes in Mental Health : Qualitative Inquiry of International Experts
- 2021
-
Ingår i: JMIR Mental Health. - : JMIR Publications. - 2368-7959. ; 8:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In a growing number of countries worldwide, clinicians are sharing mental health notes, including psychiatry and psychotherapy notes, with patients.OBJECTIVE: The 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.METHODS: In 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.RESULTS: A 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.CONCLUSIONS: 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Blease, Charlotte, et al.
(författare)
-
The benefits and harms of open notes in mental health : A Delphi survey of international experts
- 2021
-
Ingår i: PLOS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:10
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: As of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.OBJECTIVE: To solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.DESIGN: An online 3-round Delphi poll.SETTING: Online.PARTICIPANTS: International experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.MAIN OUTCOMES, AND MEASURES: An expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.RESULTS: A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items: 42 potential benefits, and 48 potential harms. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items. There was consensus that offering online access to mental health notes could enhance patients' understanding about their diagnosis, care plan, and rationale for treatments, and that access could enhance patient recall and sense of empowerment. Experts also agreed that blocking mental health notes could lead to greater harms including increased feelings of stigmatization. However, panelists predicted there could be an increase in patients demanding changes to their clinical notes, and that mental health clinicians would be less detailed/accurate in documentation.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Salmi, Liz, et al.
(författare)
-
US policy requires immediate release of records to patients
- 2021
-
Ingår i: The BMJ. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 1756-1833. ; 372
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients and clinicians should embrace the opportunitiesOn 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.1 This new information sharing rule from the 21st Century Cures Act of 20162 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 2018.3 Estonian citizens have had full access since 2005.4 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,5 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.6To patient groups, however, it is the culmination of 25 years of advocacy and relationship building with clinicians, researchers, and policy …
|
|
