Co-Designing an Initiative to Increase Shared Access to Older Adults' Patient Portals: Stakeholder Engagement.

BACKGROUND: The patient portal is a widely available secure digital platform offered by care delivery organizations that enables patients to communicate electronically with clinicians and manage their care. Many organizations allow patients to authorize family members or friends-"care partners"-to share access to patient portal accounts, thus enabling care partners to receive their own identity credentials. Shared access facilitates trilateral information exchange among patients, clinicians, and care partners; however, uptake and awareness of this functionality are limited. OBJECTIVE: We partnered with 3 health care organizations to co-design an initiative that aimed to increase shared access registration and use and that can be implemented using existing patient portals. METHODS: In 2020, we undertook a rigorous selection process to identify 3 geographically diverse health care organizations that had engaged medical informatics teams and clinical champions within service delivery lines caring for older adults. We prioritized selecting organizations that serve racially and socioeconomically diverse populations and possess sophisticated reporting capabilities, a stable patient portal platform, a sufficient volume of older adult patients, and active patient and family advisory councils. Along with patients and care partners, clinicians, staff, and other stakeholders, the study team co-designed an initiative to increase the uptake of shared access guided by either an iterative, human-centered design process or rapid assessment procedures of stakeholders' inputs. RESULTS: Between February 2020 and April 2022, 73 stakeholder engagements were conducted with patients and care partners, clinicians and clinic staff, medical informatics teams, marketing and communications staff, and administrators, as well as with funders and thought leaders. We collected insights regarding (1) barriers to awareness, registration, and use of shared access; (2) features of consumer-facing educational materials to address identified barriers; (3) features of clinician- and staff-facing materials to address identified barriers; and (4) approaches to fit the initiative into current workflows. Using these inputs iteratively via a human-centered design process, we produced brochures and posters, co-designed organization-specific web pages detailing shared access registration processes, and developed clinician and staff talking points about shared access and staff tip sheets that outline shared access registration steps. Educational materials emphasized the slogan "People remember less than half of what their doctors say," which was selected from 9 candidate alternatives as resonating best with the full range of the initiative's stakeholders. The materials were accompanied by implementation toolkits specifying and reinforcing workflows involving both in-person and telehealth visits. CONCLUSIONS: Meaningful and authentic stakeholder engagement allowed our deliberate, iterative, and human-centered co-design aimed at increasing the use of shared access. Our initiative has been launched as a part of a 12-month demonstration that will include quantitative and qualitative analysis of registration and use of shared access. Educational materials are publicly available at Coalition for Care Partners.

Words Matter: What Do Patients Find Judgmental or Offensive in Outpatient Notes?

BACKGROUND: Sharing outpatient notes with patients may bring clinically important benefits, but notes may sometimes cause patients to feel judged or offended, and thereby reduce trust. OBJECTIVE: As part of a larger survey examining the effects of open notes, we sought to understand how many patients feel judged or offended due to something they read in outpatient notes, and why. DESIGN: We analyzed responses from a large Internet survey of adult patients who used secure patient portals and had at least 1 visit note available in a 12-month period at 2 large academic medical systems in Boston and Seattle, and in a rural integrated health system in Pennsylvania. PARTICIPANTS: Adult ambulatory patients with portal accounts in health systems that offered open notes for up to 7 years. APPROACH: (1) Quantitative analysis of 2 dichotomous questions, and (2) qualitative thematic analysis of free-text responses on what patients found judgmental or offensive. KEY RESULTS: Among 22,959 patient respondents who had read at least one note and answered the 2 questions, 2,411 (10.5%) reported feeling judged and/or offended by something they read in their note(s). Patients who reported poor health, unemployment, or inability to work were more likely to feel judged or offended. Among the 2,411 patients who felt judged and/or offended, 2,137 (84.5%) wrote about what prompted their feelings. Three thematic domains emerged: (1) errors and surprises, (2) labeling, and (3) disrespect. CONCLUSIONS: One in 10 respondents reported feeling judged/offended by something they read in an outpatient note due to the perception that it contained errors, surprises, labeling, or evidence of disrespect. The content and tone may be particularly important to patients in poor health. Enhanced clinician awareness of the patient perspective may promote an improved medical lexicon, reduce the transmission of bias to other clinicians, and reinforce healing relationships.

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 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.

Patients Evaluate Visit Notes Written by Their Clinicians: a Mixed Methods Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Patients actively involved in their care demonstrate better health outcomes. Using secure internet portals, clinicians are increasingly offering patients access to their narrative visit notes (open notes), but we know little about their understanding of notes written by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We examined patients' views on the clarity, accuracy, and thoroughness of notes, their suggestions for improvement, and associations between their perceptions and willingness to recommend clinicians to others. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey of patients in 3 large health systems, June-October 2017. We performed a mixed methods analysis of survey responses regarding a self-selected note. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were 21,664 patients aged 18 years or older who had read at least 1 open note in the previous 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We asked to what degree the patient recalled understanding the note, whether it described the visit accurately, whether anything important was missing, for suggestions to improve the note, and whether they would recommend the authoring clinician to others. KEY RESULTS: Nearly all patients (96%) reported they understood all or nearly all of the self-selected note, with few differences by clinician type or specialty. Overall, 93% agreed or somewhat agreed the note accurately described the visit, and 6% reported something important missing from the note. The most common suggestions for improvement related to structure and content, jargon, and accuracy. Patients who reported understanding only some or very little of the note, or found inaccuracies or omissions, were much less likely to recommend the clinician to family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Patients overwhelmingly report understanding their visit notes and usually find them accurate, with few disparities according to sociodemographic or health characteristics. They have many suggestions for improving their quality, and if they understand a note poorly or find inaccuracies, they often have less confidence in their clinicians.

Correction: OpenNotes After 7 Years: Patient Experiences With Ongoing Access to Their Clinicians' Outpatient Visit Notes.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/13876.].

OpenNotes After 7 Years: Patient Experiences With Ongoing Access to Their Clinicians' Outpatient Visit Notes.

BACKGROUND: Following a 2010-2011 pilot intervention in which a limited sample of primary care doctors offered their patients secure Web-based portal access to their office visit notes, the participating sites expanded OpenNotes to nearly all clinicians in primary care, medical, and surgical specialty practices. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the ongoing experiences and perceptions of patients who read ambulatory visit notes written by a broad range of doctors, nurses, and other clinicians. METHODS: A total of 3 large US health systems in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania conducted a Web-based survey of adult patients who used portal accounts and had at least 1 visit note available in a recent 12-month period. The main outcome measures included patient-reported behaviors and their perceptions concerning benefits versus risks. RESULTS: Among 136,815 patients who received invitations, 21.68% (29,656/136,815) responded. Of the 28,782 patient respondents, 62.82% (18,081/28,782) were female, 72.90% (20,982/28,782) were aged 45 years or older, 76.94% (22,146/28,782) were white, and 14.30% (4115/28,782) reported fair or poor health. Among the 22,947 who reported reading 1 or more notes, 3 out of 4 reported reading them for 1 year or longer, half reported reading at least 4 notes, and 37.74% (8588/22,753) shared a note with someone else. Patients rated note reading as very important for helping take care of their health (16,354/22,520, 72.62%), feeling in control of their care (15,726/22,515, 69.85%), and remembering the plan of care (14,821/22,516, 65.82%). Few were very confused (737/22,304, 3.3%) or more worried (1078/22,303, 4.83%) after reading notes. About a third reported being encouraged by their clinicians to read notes and a third told their clinicians they had read them. Less educated, nonwhite, older, and Hispanic patients, and individuals who usually did not speak English at home, were those most likely to report major benefits from note reading. Nearly all respondents (22,593/22,947, 98.46%) thought Web-based access to visit notes a good idea, and 62.38% (13,427/21,525) rated this practice as very important for choosing a future provider. CONCLUSIONS: In this first large-scale survey of patient experiences with a broad range of clinicians working in practices in which shared notes are well established, patients find note reading very important for their health management and share their notes frequently with others. Patients are rarely troubled by what they read, and those traditionally underserved in the United States report particular benefit. However, fewer than half of clinicians and patients actively address their shared notes during visits. As the practice continues to spread rapidly in the United States and internationally, our findings indicate that OpenNotes brings benefits to patients that largely outweigh the risks.

What's going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process.

OBJECTIVES: Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on close collaboration between patients/families and clinicians. Just as patients have unique insights into diagnostic breakdowns, positive patient feedback may also generate broader perspectives on what constitutes a "good" diagnostic process (DxP). METHODS: We evaluated patient/family feedback on "what's going well" as part of an online pre-visit survey designed to engage patients/families in the DxP. Patients/families living with chronic conditions with visits in three urban pediatric subspecialty clinics (site 1) and one rural adult primary care clinic (site 2) were invited to complete the survey between December 2020 and March 2022. We adapted the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to conduct a qualitative analysis on a subset of patient/family responses with ≥20 words. RESULTS: In total, 7,075 surveys were completed before 18,129 visits (39 %) at site 1, and 460 surveys were completed prior to 706 (65 %) visits at site 2. Of all participants, 1,578 volunteered positive feedback, ranging from 1-79 words. Qualitative analysis of 272 comments with ≥20 words described: Relationships (60 %), Clinical Care (36 %), and Environment (4 %). Compared to primary care, subspecialty comments showed the same overall rankings. Within Relationships, patients/families most commonly noted: thorough and competent attention (46 %), clear communication and listening (41 %) and emotional support and human connection (39 %). Within Clinical Care, patients highlighted: timeliness (31 %), effective clinical management (30 %), and coordination of care (25 %). CONCLUSIONS: Patients/families valued relationships with clinicians above all else in the DxP, emphasizing the importance of supporting clinicians to nurture effective relationships and relationship-centered care in the DxP.

Patient and family contributions to improve the diagnostic process through the OurDX electronic health record tool: a mixed method analysis.

BACKGROUND: Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on sharing perspectives among team members and avoiding information asymmetries. Patients/Families hold unique diagnostic process (DxP) information, including knowledge of diagnostic safety blindspots-information that patients/families know, but may be invisible to clinicians. To improve information sharing, we co-developed with patients/families an online tool called 'Our Diagnosis (OurDX)'. We aimed to characterise patient/family contributions in OurDX and how they differed between individuals with and without diagnostic concerns. METHOD: We implemented OurDX in two academic organisations serving patients/families living with chronic conditions in three subspecialty clinics and one primary care clinic. Prior to each visit, patients/families were invited to contribute visit priorities, recent histories and potential diagnostic concerns. Responses were available in the electronic health record and could be incorporated by clinicians into visit notes. We randomly sampled OurDX reports with and without diagnostic concerns for chart review and used inductive and deductive qualitative analysis to assess patient/family contributions. RESULTS: 7075 (39%) OurDX reports were submitted at 18 129 paediatric subspecialty clinic visits and 460 (65%) reports were submitted among 706 eligible adult primary care visits. Qualitative analysis of OurDX reports in the chart review sample (n=450) revealed that participants contributed DxP information across 10 categories, most commonly: clinical symptoms/medical history (82%), tests/referrals (54%) and diagnosis/next steps (51%). Participants with diagnostic concerns were more likely to contribute information on DxP risks including access barriers, recent visits for the same problem, problems with tests/referrals or care coordination and communication breakdowns, some of which may represent diagnostic blindspots. CONCLUSION: Partnering with patients and families living with chronic conditions through OurDX may help clinicians gain a broader perspective of the DxP, including unique information to coproduce diagnostic safety.

Filling a gap in safety metrics: development of a patient-centred framework to identify and categorise patient-reported breakdowns related to the diagnostic process in ambulatory care.

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.

The benefits and harms of open notes in mental health: A Delphi survey of international experts.

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.

Preparing Patients and Clinicians for Open Notes in Mental Health: Qualitative Inquiry of International Experts.

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.

The Views and Experiences of Clinicians Sharing Medical Record Notes With Patients.

Importance: The 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 requires that patients be given electronic access to all the information in their electronic medical records. The regulations for implementation of this law give patients far easier access to information about their care, including the notes their clinicians write. Objective: To assess clinicians' views and experiences with sharing clinical notes (open notes) with patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Web-based survey study of physicians, advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, and therapists at 3 health systems in Boston, Massachusetts; Seattle, Washington; and rural Pennsylvania where notes have been shared across all outpatient specialties for at least 4 years. Participants were clinicians in hospital-based offices and community practices who had written at least 1 note opened by a patient in the year prior to the survey, which was administered from May 21, 2018, to August 31, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of sharing clinical notes with patients. Results: Invitations were sent to 6064 clinicians; 1628 (27%) responded. Respondents were more likely than nonrespondents to be female (65% vs 55%) and to be younger (mean [SD] age, 42.1 [12.6] vs 44.9 [12.7] years). The majority of respondents were physicians (951 [58%]), female (1023 [65%]), licensed to practice in 2000 or later (940 [61%]), and spent fewer than 40 hours per week in direct patient care (1083 [71%]). Most viewed open notes positively, agreeing they are a good idea (1182 participants [74%]); of 1314 clinicians who were aware that patients were reading their notes, 965 (74%) agreed that open notes were useful for engaging patients. In all, 798 clinicians (61%) would recommend the practice to colleagues. A total of 292 physicians (37%) reported spending more time on documentation, and many reported specific changes in the way they write their notes, the most frequent of which related to use of language that could be perceived as critical of the patient (422 respondents [58%]). Most physicians (1234 [78%]) favored being able to determine readily that their notes had been read by their patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of clinicians in a wide range of specialties who had several years of experience offering their patients ready access to their notes, more than two-thirds supported this new practice. Even among subgroups of clinicians who were less enthusiastic, most endorsed the idea of sharing notes and believed the practice could be helpful for engaging patients more actively in their care.

Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes.

Importance: As health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies. Objective: To assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, a total of 136 815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020. Exposures: Access to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017). Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors. Results: Of 136 815 patients who received survey invitations, 29 656 (21.7%) responded and 22 889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ≥4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

An Opportunity to Engage Obstetrics and Gynecology Patients Through Shared Visit Notes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess obstetrics and gynecology patients' interest in reading their ambulatory visit notes, identification of documentation errors, and perceptions of sensitive language through a quality improvement (QI) initiative. METHODS: Beginning April 2016, as part of a QI project all obstetrics and gynecology patients (except family planning) were invited to read their ambulatory visit notes and provide feedback using a patient reporting tool codeveloped with patients. Two physicians with safety expertise reviewed all patient-reported errors over the first 16 months. RESULTS: Among obstetrics and gynecology patients with an active portal account and an available note, 6,594 of 9,550 (69%) read at least one note. Two hundred twelve (3.2%) patients used the electronic reporting tool, submitting a total of 232 reports, in a "natural" environment with no advertisement, incentives, or clinician encouragement. In total, 94% felt they understood the notes, 95% understood the next steps in the care plan, and 92% felt the notes accurately described their visit. Of all reports, 27% of patients identified inaccuracies in the notes, including descriptions of symptoms (29%); family history (21%); medications (15%); health problems (15%); social history and physical examination, including elements that were reportedly documented but not performed (each 11%). Patients rated inaccuracies as important in 58% of reports, and, on clinician review, 75% of patient-reported mistakes had the potential to affect care. Among all reports, 7% of patients indicated bothersome words. More than half (56%) of patients included voluntary positive feedback such as appreciation for the health care provider, reassurance from notes, greater visit recall and care plan adherence, and positive effects on the patient-doctor relationship. DISCUSSION: Obstetrics and gynecology patients are interested in reading notes, which can promote engagement and safety. Few patients provided feedback, but those who did identified documentation inaccuracies in about one quarter of reports; the majority were relevant to care. Greater outreach and patient encouragement are needed to further engage patients in safety.