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.

Embracing the new age of transparency: mental health patients reading their psychotherapy notes online.

Background: Though patients' access to clinicians' visit notes may improve patient engagement and strengthen patient-clinician relationships, it is unknown whether these benefits extend to mental health settings. Aims: Examine patients' attitudes and experiences reading their psychotherapists' notes online. Methods: Using a mixed methods design, we conducted telephone interviews and an online survey of patients at an academic medical center who had opened ≥1 of their psychotherapy notes online. Eleven patients who had read ≥6 psychotherapy notes participated in semi-structured interviews, and 85 patients completed an online survey (response rate = 24%). Results: Nearly all survey respondents (94%) agreed that having open therapy notes is a good idea, and 87% wanted it to continue. More than half reported therapy notes were "very important" (≥7/10 on 0-10 scale) for feeling in control of their care, trusting their providers and taking care of themselves. Two respondents felt offended, and 7 (11%) felt judged by something they read in a note. Interview data supported survey findings. Conclusions: Our pilot findings indicate that most patients who read open therapy notes find them valuable for understanding and engaging in their mental health care, with minimal adverse effects. Larger studies with diverse patient populations are needed.

What Patients Value About Reading Visit Notes: A Qualitative Inquiry of Patient Experiences With Their Health Information.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly asking for their health data. Yet, little is known about what motivates patients to engage with the electronic health record (EHR). Furthermore, quality-focused mechanisms for patients to comment about their records are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to learn more about patient experiences with reading and providing feedback on their visit notes. METHODS: We developed a patient feedback tool linked to OpenNotes as part of a pilot quality improvement initiative focused on patient engagement. Patients who had appointments with members of 2 primary care teams piloting the program between August 2014-2015 were eligible to participate. We asked patients what they liked about reading notes and about using a feedback tool and analyzed all patient reports submitted during the pilot period. Two researchers coded the qualitative responses (κ=.74). RESULTS: Patients and care partners submitted 260 reports. Among these, 98.5% (256/260) of reports indicated that the reporting tool was valuable, and 68.8% (179/260) highlighted what patients liked about reading notes and the OpenNotes patient reporting tool process. We identified 4 themes describing what patients value about note content: confirm and remember next steps, quicker access and results, positive emotions, and sharing information with care partners; and 4 themes about both patients' use of notes and the feedback tool: accuracy and correcting mistakes, partnership and engagement, bidirectional communication and enhanced education, and importance of feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and care partners who read notes and submitted feedback reported greater engagement and the desire to help clinicians improve note accuracy. Aspects of what patients like about using both notes as well as a feedback tool highlight personal, relational, and safety benefits. Future efforts to engage patients through the EHR may be guided by what patients value, offering opportunities to strengthen care partnerships between patients and clinicians.

Do Patients Who Access Clinical Information on Patient Internet Portals Have More Primary Care Visits?

BACKGROUND: As health care costs alarm the nation and the debate increases about the impact of health information technologies, patients are reviewing their medical records increasingly through secure Internet portals. Important questions remain about the impact of portal use on office visits. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether use of patient Internet portals to access records is associated with increased primary care utilization. RESEARCH DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Primary care patients registered on patient Internet portals, within an integrated health system serving rural Pennsylvania and an academic medical center in Boston. MEASURES: Frequency of "clinical portal use" (days/2 mo intervals over 2 y) included secure messaging about clinical issues and viewing laboratory and radiology findings. In year 2, a subset of patients also gained access to their primary care doctor's visit notes. The main outcome was number of primary care office visits. RESULTS: In the first 2 months of the 2-year period, 14% of 44,951 primary care patients engaged in clinical portal use 2 or more days per month, 31% did so 1 day per month, and the remainder had no clinical portal use. Overall, adjusted for age, sex, and chronic conditions, clinical portal use was not associated with subsequent office visits. Fewer than 0.1% of patients engaged in high levels of clinical portal use (31 or more login days in 2 mo) that were associated with 1 or more additional visits in the subsequent 2 months (months 3 and 4). However, the reverse was true: office visits led to subsequent clinical portal use. Similar trends were observed among patients with or without access to visit notes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients turn to their portals following visits, but clinical portal use does not contribute to an increase in primary care visits.

Characteristics of Patients Who Report Confusion After Reading Their Primary Care Clinic Notes Online.

Patient access to online electronic medical records (EMRs) is increasing and may offer benefits to patients. However, the inherent complexity of medicine may cause confusion. We elucidate characteristics and health behaviors of patients who report confusion after reading their doctors' notes online. We analyzed data from 4,528 patients in Boston, MA, central Pennsylvania, and Seattle, WA, who were granted online access to their primary care doctors' clinic notes and who viewed at least one note during the 1-year intervention. Three percent of patients reported confusion after reading their visit notes. These patients were more likely to be at least 70 years of age (p < .0001), have fewer years of education (p < .0017), be unemployed (p < .0001), have lower levels of self-reported health (p < .0043), and worry more after reading visit notes (relative risk [RR] 4.83; confidence interval [CI] 3.17, 7.36) compared to patients who were not confused. In adjusted analyses, they were less likely to report feeling more in control of their health (RR 0.42; CI 0.25, 0.71), remembering their care plan (RR 0.26; CI 0.17, 0.42), and understanding their medical conditions (RR 0.32; CI 0.19, 0.54) as a result of reading their doctors' notes compared to patients who were not confused. Patients who were confused by reading their doctors' notes were less likely to report benefits in health behaviors. Understanding this small subset of patients is a critical step in reducing gaps in provider-patient communication and in efforts to tailor educational approaches for patients.

The prevalence of Vitamin D deficiency is higher in adult survivors of childhood cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the rate of vitamin D deficiency in paediatric cancer survivors is higher than in the background population, and whether this is of pathological significance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 25OHD was measured in a previously studied group of 208 survivors (n = 108 paediatric 5-17 years, n = 99 adults 18-39 years) and compared with paediatric (5-17 years; n = 132) and adult controls (25-35 years; n = 1393 from the AusDiab cohort) adjusted for age and gender. Relationships with treatment factors (irradiation, bone marrow transplantation and intensity of treatment) along with overweight/obesity (defined by BMI), abdominal adiposity (waist:height ratio >0·5) and hyperinsulinism or abnormal glucose tolerance (HI/aGT) were sought. RESULTS: 25OHD concentrations were similar in paediatric survivors compared with controls (64·3 ± 21·6 nmol/l vs 66·3 ± 22·8 nmol/l), with no effect of age or gender. Adjusted for gender, rates of 25OHD deficiency (<50 nmol/l) were higher in adult survivors compared with AusDiab controls (42·4% vs 20·8%; P < 0·001). Apart from time since diagnosis (P = 0·03), no relationship with treatment factors was detected. In multivariate regression analysis, abdominal adiposity (P = 0·001), but not overweight/obesity by BMI status nor HI/aGT, was associated with significantly lower 25OHD concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Adult survivors are at increased risk of abnormalities in vitamin D compared to the background population, probably reflecting longer time since diagnosis. Like others, we have not identified any contributory treatment-related factors. Vitamin D deficiency does not appear to be associated with the development of abnormal glucose tolerance in this population.

Case Study: Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Arising in Ovarian Mature Cystic Teratoma.

We describe an unexpected finding of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma associated with mature cystic teratoma of the ovary. A 68-yr-old woman with a complex left ovarian cystic mass on imaging underwent bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, lymphadenectomy, appendicectomy, and omentectomy. Histopathologic examination revealed nodules of malignant non-Hodgkin lymphoma within the teratoma. A diagnosis of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, germinal center cell subtype by Hans criteria was made after immunostaining and molecular studies. The patient was treated with R-CHOP chemotherapy and remains disease-free at 14-mo follow-up.

Sharing Physician Notes Through an Electronic Portal is Associated With Improved Medication Adherence: Quasi-Experimental Study.

BACKGROUND: In surveys, interviews, and focus groups, patients taking medications and offered Web portal access to their primary care physicians' (PCPs) notes report improved adherence to their regimens. However, objective confirmation has yet to be reported. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between patient Internet portal access to primary care physician visit notes and medication adherence. METHODS: This study is a retrospective comparative analysis at one site of the OpenNotes quasi-experimental trial. The setting includes primary care practices at the Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Danville, Pennsylvania. Participants include patients 18 years of age or older with electronic portal access, GHS primary care physicians, and Geisinger health plan insurance, and taking at least one antihypertensive or antihyperlipidemic agent from March 2009 to June 2011. Starting in March 2010, intervention patients were invited and reminded to read their PCPs' notes. Control patients also had Web portal access throughout, but their PCPs' notes were not available. From prescription claims, adherence was assessed by using the proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients with a PDC ≥.80 were considered adherent and were compared across groups using generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 2147 patients (756 intervention participants, 35.21%; 1391 controls, 64.79%) were included in the analysis. Compared to those without access, patients invited to review notes were more adherent to antihypertensive medications-adherence rate 79.7% for intervention versus 75.3% for control group; adjusted risk ratio, 1.06 (95% CI 1.00-1.12). Adherence was similar among patient groups taking antihyperlipidemic agents-adherence rate 77.6% for intervention versus 77.3% for control group; adjusted risk ratio, 1.01 (95% CI 0.95-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Availability of notes following PCP visits was associated with improved adherence by patients prescribed antihypertensive, but not antihyperlipidemic, medications. As the use of fully transparent records spreads, patients invited to read their clinicians' notes may modify their behaviors in clinically valuable ways.

The urban underserved: attitudes towards gaining full access to electronic medical records.

BACKGROUND: As the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) spreads, health-care organizations are increasingly offering patients online access to their medical records. Studies evaluating patient attitudes towards viewing elements of their records through secure, electronic patient portals have generally not included medically underserved patients or those with HIV/AIDS. The goal of this study was to gain insight into such patients' attitudes towards online access to their medical records, including their doctors' visit notes. METHODS: Qualitative study of four focus groups with adult patients in general adult medicine and HIV clinics at a large county hospital. Transcripts were analysed for themes using an immersion/crystallization approach. RESULTS: Patients' baseline understanding of the health record was limited. Perceived benefits of online access were improved patient understanding of health and disease, convenience, empowerment and a stronger relationship with their provider. Concerns included threats to privacy, worries about being unable to understand their record, fear that the computer would replace direct provider contact and hesitancy about potential demands on a provider's time. Patients also recommended providing online visit reminders, links to credible health information and assistance for paying bills. CONCLUSION: Despite their initial lack of knowledge of the health record, focus group participants were overwhelmingly positive about the prospect of online access to medical records. However, they worried about potential loss of privacy and interference with the patient-provider relationship. As EMRs increasingly offer patients open access to their medical records, vulnerable patient groups will likely join others in desiring and adopting such change, but may need targeted support during times of transition.

Patients who share transparent visit notes with others: characteristics, risks, and benefits.

BACKGROUND: Inviting patients to read their primary care visit notes may improve communication and help them engage more actively in their health care. Little is known about how patients will use the opportunity to share their visit notes with family members or caregivers, or what the benefits might be. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the characteristics of patients who reported sharing their visit notes during the course of the study, including their views on associated benefits and risks. METHODS: The OpenNotes study invited patients to access their primary care providers' visit notes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Pre- and post-intervention surveys assessed patient demographics, standardized measures of patient-doctor communication, sharing of visit notes with others during the study, and specific health behaviors reflecting the potential benefits and risks of offering patients easy access to their visit notes. RESULTS: More than half (55.43%, 2503/4516) of the participants who reported viewing at least one visit note would like the option of letting family members or friends have their own Web access to their visit notes, and 21.70% (980/4516) reported sharing their visit notes with someone during the study year. Men, and those retired or unable to work, were significantly more likely to share visit notes, and those sharing were neither more nor less concerned about their privacy than were non-sharers. Compared to participants who did not share clinic notes, those who shared were more likely to report taking better care of themselves and taking their medications as prescribed, after adjustment for age, gender, employment status, and study site. CONCLUSIONS: One in five OpenNotes patients shared a visit note with someone, and those sharing Web access to their visit notes reported better adherence to self-care and medications. As health information technology systems increase patients' ability to access their medical records, facilitating access to caregivers may improve perceived health behaviors and outcomes.

People with diabetes who read their clinicians' visit notes: Behaviors and attitudes.

OBJECTIVES: To understand behaviors and attitudes of adults with diabetes who read their clinicians' visit notes. METHODS: By linking a large 2017 patient survey involving three institutions with administrative and portal use data, we identified patients with diabetes mellitus from outpatient records and examined reading behaviors related to eligible notes-initial, follow-up, history and physical, and progress notes. We analyzed patients' perceived benefits of reading notes. RESULTS: 2104 respondents had diagnoses of diabetes mellitus and had read ≥1 note in the 12-month period. Patients had an average of 8.7 eligible notes available and read 59% of them. The strongest predictor of reading more notes was having more notes available; the specialties of the authoring clinicians were not correlated with note reading rates. Patients reported understanding notes by primary care clinicians and specialists equally well; more than 90% of patients reported understanding everything or almost everything in a self-selected note. Across visit types, 73-80% of patients reported that note reading was extremely important for taking care of their health. DISCUSSION: People with diabetes want to read their clinicians' notes, are accessing them at high rates, and report understanding the notes and benefiting from reading them.

Leveraging an Electronic Health Record Patient Portal to Help Patients Formulate Their Health Care Goals: Mixed Methods Evaluation of Pilot Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Persons with multiple chronic conditions face complex medical regimens and clinicians may not focus on what matters most to these patients who vary widely in their health priorities. Patient Priorities Care is a facilitator-led process designed to identify patients' priorities and align decision-making and care, but the need for a facilitator has limited its widespread adoption. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study are to design and test mechanisms for patients to complete a self-directed process for identifying priorities and providing their priorities to clinicians. METHODS: The study involved patients of at least 65 years of age at 2 family medicine practices with 5 physicians each. We first tested 2 versions of an interactive website and asked patients to bring their results to their visit. We then tested an Epic previsit questionnaire derived from the website's questions and included standard previsit materials. We completed postintervention phone interviews and an online survey with participating patients and collected informal feedback and conducted a focus group with participating physicians. RESULTS: In the test of the first website version, 17.3% (35/202) of invited patients went to the website, 11.4% (23/202) completed all of the questions, 2.5% (5/202) brought results to their visits, and the median session time was 43.0 (IQR 28.0) minutes. Patients expressed confusion about bringing results to the visit. After clarifying that issue in the second version, 15.1% (32/212) of patients went to the website, 14.6% (31/212) completed the questions, 1.9% (4/212) brought results to the visit, and the median session time was 35.0 (IQR 35.0) minutes. In the test of the Epic questionnaire, 26.4% (198/750) of patients completed the questionnaire before at least 1 visit, and the median completion time was 14.0 (IQR 23.0) minutes. The 8 main questions were answered 62.9% (129/205) to 95.6% (196/205) of the time. Patients who completed questionnaires were younger than those who did not (72.3 vs 76.1 years) and were more likely to complete at least 1 of their other assigned questionnaires (99.5%, 197/198) than those who did not (10.3%, 57/552). A total of 140 of 198 (70.7%) patients responded to a survey, and 86 remembered completing the questionnaire; 78 (90.7%) did not remember having difficulty answering the questions and 57 (68.7%) agreed or somewhat agreed that it helped them and their clinicians to understand their priorities. Doctors noted that the sickest patients did not complete the questionnaire and that the discussion provided a good segue into end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding questionnaires assaying patient priorities into patient portals holds promise for expanding access to priorities-concordant care.

Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead.

BACKGROUND: Little information exists about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients experience if patients are invited to read their doctors' office notes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect on doctors and patients of facilitating patient access to visit notes over secure Internet portals. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental trial of PCPs and patient volunteers in a year-long program that provided patients with electronic links to their doctors' notes. SETTING: Primary care practices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Massachusetts, Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC) in Washington. PARTICIPANTS: 105 PCPs and 13,564 of their patients who had at least 1 completed note available during the intervention period. MEASUREMENTS: Portal use and electronic messaging by patients and surveys focusing on participants' perceptions of behaviors, benefits, and negative consequences. RESULTS: 11,155 [corrected] of 13,564 patients with visit notes available opened at least 1 note (84% at BIDMC, 82% [corrected] at GHS, and 47% at HMC). Of 5219 [corrected] patients who opened at least 1 note and completed a postintervention survey, 77% to 59% [corrected] across the 3 sites reported that open notes helped them feel more in control of their care; 60% to 78% of those taking medications reported increased medication adherence; 26% to 36% had privacy concerns; 1% to 8% reported that the notes caused confusion, worry, or offense; and 20% to 42% reported sharing notes with others. The volume of electronic messages from patients did not change. After the intervention, few doctors reported longer visits (0% to 5%) or more time addressing patients' questions outside of visits (0% to 8%), with practice size having little effect; 3% to 36% of doctors reported changing documentation content; and 0% to 21% reported taking more time writing notes. Looking ahead, 59% to 62% of patients believed that they should be able to add comments to a doctor's note. One out of 3 patients believed that they should be able to approve the notes' contents, but 85% to 96% of doctors did not agree. At the end of the experimental period, 99% of patients wanted open notes to continue and no doctor elected to stop. LIMITATIONS: Only 3 geographic areas were represented, and most participants were experienced in using portals. Doctors volunteering to participate and patients using portals and completing surveys may tend to offer favorable feedback, and the response rate of the patient surveys (41%) may further limit generalizability. CONCLUSION: Patients accessed visit notes frequently, a large majority reported clinically relevant benefits and minimal concerns, and virtually all patients wanted the practice to continue. With doctors experiencing no more than a modest effect on their work lives, open notes seem worthy of widespread adoption. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Drane Family Fund, the Richard and Florence Koplow Charitable Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.