Risks and rewards of increasing patient access to medical records in clinical ophthalmology using OpenNotes.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of OpenNotes and corresponding increase in patient access to medical records requires thorough assessment of the risks and benefits of note-sharing. Ophthalmology notes are unique among medical records in that they extensively utilize non-standardized abbreviations and drawings; they are often indecipherable even to highly-educated clinicians outside of ophthalmology. No studies to date have assessed ophthalmologist perceptions of OpenNotes. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted from 4/28 to 5/12/2016. A survey was distributed to 30 clinicians (25 ophthalmologists, three optometrists, two nurses) in the University of Colorado's Department of Ophthalmology to evaluate provider attitudes towards granting patients access to online medical records. RESULTS: Many clinicians felt patients would have difficulty understanding their records and may be unnecessarily alarmed or offended by them. Some clinicians worried their workload would increase and feared having to change the way they document. Perceived benefits of OpenNotes included improving patient understanding of their medical conditions, strengthening patient-physician trust, and enhancing patient care. Many perceived risks and benefits of note-sharing were associated with conceptions of the ideal clinician-patient relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians in ophthalmology perceived both benefits and consequences of increasing patient access to ophthalmic records, and there were significant correlations between these perceptions and their conceptions of the clinician-patient relationship. This is the first study to assess potential ophthalmology provider attitudes toward sharing ophthalmic records. Although limited in sample size and power, this study demonstrates some ways patient-accessible ophthalmic records can affect the clinical practice of ophthalmology and emphasizes the unique challenges of OpenNotes in ophthalmology.

Training in and comfort with diagnosis and management of ophthalmic emergencies among emergency medicine physicians in the United States.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Patients with ophthalmic emergencies often present to emergency rooms. Emergency medicine (EM) physicians should feel comfortable encountering these conditions. We assessed EM physicians' comfort working up, diagnosing, and managing ophthalmic emergencies. SUBJECTS/METHODS: 329 EM physicians participated in this cross-sectional multicentre survey. Questions inquired about the amount, type, and self-perceived adequacy of ophthalmic training. Likert scales were used to assess confidence and comfort working up, diagnosing, and managing ophthalmic emergencies. RESULTS: Participants recall receiving a median of 5 and 10 h of ophthalmic training in medical school and residency, respectively. Few feel this prepared them for residency (16.5%) or practice (52.0%). Only 50.6% feel confident with their ophthalmic exam. Most (75.0%) feel confident in their ability to identify an ophthalmic emergency, but 58.8% feel well prepared to work them up. Responders feel more comfortable diagnosing acute retrobulbar hematoma (72.5%), retinal detachment (69.8%), and acute angle closure glaucoma (78.0%) than central retinal artery occlusion (28.9%) or giant cell arteritis (53.2%). Only 60.2% feel comfortable determining if canthotomy and cantholysis is necessary in the setting of acute retrobulbar hematoma, and 40.3% feel comfortable performing the procedure. There was a trend towards attending physicians and providers in urban and academic settings feeling more comfortable diagnosing and managing ophthalmic emergencies compared to trainees, non-urban, and non-academic physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Many participants do not feel comfortable using ophthalmic equipment, performing an eye exam, making vision or potentially life-saving diagnoses, or performing vision-saving procedures, suggesting the need to increase ophthalmic training in EM curricula.