Cargando…

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to asses...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Walker, Jan, Leveille, Suzanne, Kriegel, Gila, Lin, Chen-Tan, Liu, Stephen K, Payne, Thomas H, Harcourt, Kendall, Dong, Zhiyong, Fitzgerald, Patricia, Germak, Matthew, Markson, Lawrence, Jackson, Sara L, Shucard, Hannah, Elmore, Joann G, Delbanco, Tom
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8663611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34747710
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/29951
_version_ 1784613677832339456
author Walker, Jan
Leveille, Suzanne
Kriegel, Gila
Lin, Chen-Tan
Liu, Stephen K
Payne, Thomas H
Harcourt, Kendall
Dong, Zhiyong
Fitzgerald, Patricia
Germak, Matthew
Markson, Lawrence
Jackson, Sara L
Shucard, Hannah
Elmore, Joann G
Delbanco, Tom
author_facet Walker, Jan
Leveille, Suzanne
Kriegel, Gila
Lin, Chen-Tan
Liu, Stephen K
Payne, Thomas H
Harcourt, Kendall
Dong, Zhiyong
Fitzgerald, Patricia
Germak, Matthew
Markson, Lawrence
Jackson, Sara L
Shucard, Hannah
Elmore, Joann G
Delbanco, Tom
author_sort Walker, Jan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8663611
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86636112022-01-05 Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes Walker, Jan Leveille, Suzanne Kriegel, Gila Lin, Chen-Tan Liu, Stephen K Payne, Thomas H Harcourt, Kendall Dong, Zhiyong Fitzgerald, Patricia Germak, Matthew Markson, Lawrence Jackson, Sara L Shucard, Hannah Elmore, Joann G Delbanco, Tom J Med Internet Res Original Paper BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development. JMIR Publications 2021-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8663611/ /pubmed/34747710 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/29951 Text en ©Jan Walker, Suzanne Leveille, Gila Kriegel, Chen-Tan Lin, Stephen K Liu, Thomas H Payne, Kendall Harcourt, Zhiyong Dong, Patricia Fitzgerald, Matthew Germak, Lawrence Markson, Sara L Jackson, Hannah Shucard, Joann G Elmore, Tom Delbanco. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 08.11.2021. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Walker, Jan
Leveille, Suzanne
Kriegel, Gila
Lin, Chen-Tan
Liu, Stephen K
Payne, Thomas H
Harcourt, Kendall
Dong, Zhiyong
Fitzgerald, Patricia
Germak, Matthew
Markson, Lawrence
Jackson, Sara L
Shucard, Hannah
Elmore, Joann G
Delbanco, Tom
Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes
title Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes
title_full Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes
title_fullStr Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes
title_full_unstemmed Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes
title_short Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes
title_sort patients contributing to visit notes: mixed methods evaluation of ournotes
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8663611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34747710
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/29951
work_keys_str_mv AT walkerjan patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT leveillesuzanne patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT kriegelgila patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT linchentan patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT liustephenk patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT paynethomash patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT harcourtkendall patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT dongzhiyong patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT fitzgeraldpatricia patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT germakmatthew patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT marksonlawrence patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT jacksonsaral patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT shucardhannah patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT elmorejoanng patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes
AT delbancotom patientscontributingtovisitnotesmixedmethodsevaluationofournotes