[Attitudes and Expectations of Psychological and Medical Psychotherapists Towards Open Notes: Analysis of Qualitative Survey Responses]. / Einstellungen und Erwartungen von psychologischen und ärztlichen Psychotherapeut*innen gegenüber Open Notes: Analyse qualitativer Survey-Antworten.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores attitudes and expectations of psychotherapists (PT) towards the introduction of digital patient access to clinical notes ("Open Notes"; ON)), including the advantages and disadvantages in psychotherapeutic practice. METHODS: As part of the PEPPPSY study, an online survey was conducted. Free text responses (n = 107) were qualitatively analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: 129 psychological and medical PT took part in the survey. PT saw advantages such as transparency and patient-centred documentation, but feared disadvantages for the therapeutic relationship and an increased workload through the implementation of ON. Concerns were raised about data security and negative effects on treatment. Recommendations for implementation include patient-specific access adaptations and guided access. CONCLUSION: PT are ambivalent about ON. Further research and guidelines for the use of ON in psychotherapy are needed.

Reasons for Acceptance or Rejection of Online Record Access Among Patients Affected by a Severe Mental Illness: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, online record access (ORA) has been established through secure patient portals in various countries, allowing patients to access their health data, including clinical notes ("open notes"). Previous research indicates that ORA in mental health, particularly among patients with severe mental illness (SMI), has been rarely offered. Little is known about the expectations and motivations of patients with SMI when reading what their clinicians share via ORA. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to explore the reasons why patients with SMI consider or reject ORA and whether sociodemographic characteristics may influence patient decisions. METHODS: ORA was offered to randomly selected patients at 3 university outpatient clinics in Brandenburg, Germany, which exclusively treat patients with SMI. Within the framework of a mixed methods evaluation, qualitative interviews were conducted with patients who chose to participate in ORA and those who declined, aiming to explore the underlying reasons for their decisions. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Sociodemographic characteristics of patients were examined using descriptive statistics to identify predictors of acceptance or rejection of ORA. RESULTS: Out of 103 included patients, 58% (n=60) wished to read their clinical notes. The reasons varied, ranging from a desire to engage more actively in their treatment to critically monitoring it and using the accessible data for third-party purposes. Conversely, 42% (n=43) chose not to use ORA, voicing concerns about possibly harming the trustful relationship with their clinicians as well as potential personal distress or uncertainty arising from reading the notes. Practical barriers such as a lack of digital literacy or suspected difficult-to-understand medical language were also named as contributing factors. Correlation analysis revealed that the majority of patients with depressive disorder desired to read the clinical notes (P<.001), while individuals with psychotic disorders showed a higher tendency to decline ORA (P<.05). No significant group differences were observed for other patient groups or characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of ORA is influenced by a wide range of motivational factors, while patients also present a similar variety of reasons for declining its use. The results emphasize the urgent need for knowledge and patient education regarding factors that may hinder the decision to use ORA, including its practical usage, its application possibilities, and concerns related to data privacy. Further research is needed to explore approaches for adequately preparing individuals with SMI to transition from their inherent interest to active engagement with ORA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00030188; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00030188.

Psychotherapists' views on open notes: An online survey from Germany.

Background: In an increasing number of countries, patients are given online record access (ORA) to their clinical notes ("open notes"). In many places, psychotherapy notes are exempt, even if patients explicitly wish to read them. Previous research suggests that psychotherapists (PTs) have reservations that are not yet fully understood. Objective: To investigate the attitudes and perceived effects of open notes on psychotherapeutic care, patients, and individual psychotherapeutic practice in Germany. Methods: Psychological and medical therapists were invited to participate in a national online survey. Sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, age, professional group, and psychotherapeutic school were gathered. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the 51-item survey. Results: 129 PTs completed the survey. Only a small proportion of respondents (30 out of 129, 23.3%) suspected that open notes would improve the efficiency of psychotherapeutic care. On the one hand, participants assumed that patients gain more control over their treatment (59 out of 129, 45.7%) and are better able to remember therapy goals (55 out of 129, 42.6%), although this was considered unlikely to lead to greater engagement in the therapy process (94 out of 129, 72.9%). On the other hand, PTs expected patients to misunderstand their notes, feel offended (98 out of 129, 76.0%), and approach them with questions (107 out of 129, 82.9%) or requests for changes (94 out of 129, 72.9%). The respondents also anticipated being less honest when writing (95 out of 129, 73.6%) and reported they needed more time for documentation (99 out of 129, 76.7%). A meaningful use of open notes for working with relatives was envisaged (101 out of 129, 78.3%). Conclusion: PTs in Germany tend to have a negative attitude towards patients' ORA on open notes. Further research on clinical efficacy and feasibility is necessary to demonstrate whether open notes add value in the context of psychotherapy.

Changes in Documentation Due to Patient Access to Electronic Health Records: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, patient-accessible electronic health records (PAEHRs) are increasingly being implemented. Despite reported benefits to patients, the innovation has prompted concerns among health care professionals (HCPs), including the possibility that access incurs a "dumbing down" of clinical records. Currently, no review has investigated empirical evidence of whether and how documentation changes after introducing PAEHRs. OBJECTIVE: This paper presents the protocol for a scoping review examining potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs documentation after using PAEHRs. METHODS: This scoping review will be carried out based on the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. Several databases will be used to conduct a literature search (APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, PubMed, and Web of Science Core Collection). Authors will participate in screening identified papers to explore the research questions: How do PAEHRs affect HCPs' documentation practices? and What subjective and objective changes to the clinical notes arise after patient access? Only studies that relate to actual use experiences, and not merely prior expectations about PAEHRs, will be selected in the review. Data abstraction will include but will not be limited to publication type, publication year, country, sample characteristics, setting, study aim, research question, and conclusions. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies included. RESULTS: The results from this scoping review will be presented as a narrative synthesis structured along the key themes of the corpus of evidence. Additional data will be prepared in charts or tabular format. We anticipate the results to be presented in a scoping review at a later date. They will be disseminated at scientific conferences and through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first scoping review that considers potential change in documentation after implementation of PAEHRs. The results can potentially help affirm or refute prior opinions and expectations among various stakeholders about the use of PAEHRs and thereby help to address uncertainties. Results may help to provide guidance to clinicians in writing notes and thus have immediate practical relevance to care. In addition, the review will help to identify any substantive research gaps in this field of research. In the longer term, our findings may contribute to the development of shared documentation guidelines, which in turn are central to improving patient communication and safety. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/46722.