Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011 Dec 20;155(12):811-9.
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-12-201112200-00003.

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: patients and doctors look ahead: patient and physician surveys

Affiliations

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: patients and doctors look ahead: patient and physician surveys

Jan Walker et al. Ann Intern Med. .

Erratum in

  • Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 3;157(1):80

Abstract

Background: Little is known about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients would expect if patients were invited to read their doctors' office notes.

Objective: To explore attitudes toward potential benefits or harms if PCPs offered patients ready access to visit notes.

Design: The PCPs and patients completed surveys before joining a voluntary program that provided electronic links to doctors' notes.

Setting: Primary care practices in 3 U.S. states.

Participants: Participating and nonparticipating PCPs and adult patients at primary care practices in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Measurements: Doctors' and patients' attitudes toward and expectations of open visit notes, their ideas about the potential benefits and risks, and demographic characteristics.

Results: 110 of 114 participating PCPs (96%), 63 of 140 nonparticipating PCPs (45%), and 37 856 of 90 203 patients (42%) completed surveys. Overall, 69% to 81% of participating PCPs across the 3 sites and 92% to 97% of patients thought open visit notes were a good idea, compared with 16% to 33% of nonparticipating PCPs. Similarly, participating PCPs and patients generally agreed with statements about potential benefits of open visit notes, whereas nonparticipating PCPs were less likely to agree. Among participating PCPs, 74% to 92% anticipated improved communication and patient education, in contrast to 45% to 67% of nonparticipating PCPs. More than one half of participating PCPs (50% to 58%) and most nonparticipating PCPs (88% to 92%) expected that open visit notes would result in greater worry among patients; far fewer patients concurred (12% to 16%). Thirty-six percent to 50% of participating PCPs and 83% to 84% of nonparticipating PCPs anticipated more patient questions between visits. Few PCPs (0% to 33%) anticipated increased risk for lawsuits. Patient enthusiasm extended across age, education, and health status, and 22% anticipated sharing visit notes with others, including other doctors.

Limitations: Access to electronic patient portals is not widespread, and participation was limited to patients using such portals. Response rates were higher among participating PCPs than nonparticipating PCPs; many participating PCPs had small patient panels.

Conclusion: Among PCPs, opinions about open visit notes varied widely in terms of predicting the effect on their practices and benefits for patients. In contrast, patients expressed considerable enthusiasm and few fears, anticipating both improved understanding and more involvement in care. Sharing visit notes has broad implications for quality of care, privacy, and shared accountability.

Primary funding source: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Pioneer Portfolio, Drane Family Fund, and Koplow Charitable Foundation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Proportion of PCPs and patients who agreed or somewhat agreed with statements about the potential benefits of open visit notes for patients, by study site.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Proportion of PCPs and patients who agreed or somewhat agreed with statements about the potential harms of open visit notes to patients, by study site.

Comment in

References

    1. Reti SR, Feldman HJ, Ross SE, Safran C. Improving personal health records for patient-centered care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17:192–5. PMID: 20190063. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ralston JD, Martin DP, Anderson ML, Fishman PA, Conrad DA, Larson EB, et al. Group Health Cooperative's transformation toward patient-centered access. Med Care Res Rev. 2009;66:703–24. PMID: 19549993. - PubMed
    1. Pagliari C, Detmer D, Singleton P. Potential of electronic personal health records. BMJ. 2007;335:330–3. PMID: 17703042. - PMC - PubMed
    1. NHS Connecting for Health [10 April 2011];Access to your summary care record. Accessed at www.nhscarerecords.nhs.uk/access/ on.
    1. Ross SE, Moore LA, Earnest MA, Wittevrongel L, Lin CT. Providing a web-based online medical record with electronic communication capabilities to patients with congestive heart failure: randomized trial. J Med Internet Res. 2004;6:e12. PMID: 15249261. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types