The Safety of Outpatient Health Care : Review of Electronic Health Records.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To measure AEs in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR). SETTING: 11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018. PATIENTS: 3103 patients who received outpatient care. MEASUREMENTS: Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites. RESULTS: The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially. LIMITATION: Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs. CONCLUSION: Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

Associations Between Organizational Communication and Patients' Experience of Prolonged Emotional Impact Following Medical Errors.

BACKGROUND: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood. METHODS: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year). RESULTS: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]). CONCLUSION: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

Assessing the impact of hospital mergers and acquisitions on safety culture with proactive risk assessments.

Hospitals seeking to understand patient safety strengths and vulnerabilities in the context of mergers/acquisitions benefit more from a third-party perspective than from a limited internal process. A well-structured and highly-inclusive risk assessment-involving a broad cross-section of interviews-can be key to a successful transition of optimal health care safety during organizational changes.

The Patient Safety Adoption Framework: A Practical Framework to Bridge the Know-Do Gap.

OBJECTIVES: Many patient safety initiatives fail to be adopted and implemented, even when proven effective. This creates the well-recognized know-do gap, referring to the discrepancy between what healthcare workers know should be done based on evidence and what takes place in practice. We aimed to develop a framework to improve the adoption and implementation of patient safety initiatives. METHODS: We conducted a background literature review followed by qualitative interviews with patient safety leaders to identify barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation. Inductive thematic analysis was used to generate themes that informed the development of the framework. We used a consensus-building approach to co-create the framework and guidance tool with an Ad Hoc Committee made up of subject-matter experts and patient family advisors. The framework was tested for utility, feasibility, and acceptability through qualitative interviews. RESULTS: The Patient Safety Adoption Framework contains 5 domains and 6 subdomains. The domains are leadership (subdomains: prioritization, accountability, governance), culture and context, process (subdomains: co-creation, high reliability, engagement), meaningful measurement, and person-centeredness. A guidance tool was developed to provide practical guidance for improvement teams using the framework. Testing affirmed the framework and guidance tool with a high degree of acceptability, feasibility, and utility among implementers and subject-matter experts. CONCLUSIONS: The Patient Safety Adoption Framework provides the essential components necessary to facilitate the adoption and implementation of patient safety initiatives. The framework offers a roadmap for healthcare organizations striving to close the know-do gap.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events. RESULTS: In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

Tackling Ambulatory Safety Risks Through Patient Engagement: What 10,000 Patients and Families Say About Safety-Related Knowledge, Behaviors, and Attitudes After Reading Visit Notes.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory safety risks including delayed diagnoses or missed abnormal test results are difficult for clinicians to see, because they often occur in the space between visits. Experts advocate greater patient engagement to improve safety, but strategies are limited. Patient access to clinical notes ("OpenNotes") may help close the safety gap between visits. METHODS: We surveyed patients and families who logged on to the patient portal and had at least one ambulatory note available in the past 12 months at two academic hospitals during June to September 2016, focusing on patient-reported effects of OpenNotes on safety knowledge, behaviors, and attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 6913 (28%) of 24,722 patients at an adult hospital and 3672 (17%) of 21,579 participants at the children's hospital submitted surveys. Approximately 75% of patients and parents each reported that reading notes helped them understand the reason for both tests and referrals, and approximately 50% felt that it helped them complete tests and referrals. Roughly 75% of participants were more likely to check and understand test results. Overall, 97% of participants reported that trust in the provider, activation, patient-provider goal alignment, and teamwork were each better or the same after reading 1 note or more. Nonwhite participants and those with high school education or less were 30% to 50% more likely to report that reading notes helped them complete tests compared with white and more educated respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of more than 10,000 patients and parents reported reading notes helped them understand and follow through on tests and referrals. As information transparency spreads, OpenNotes can help activate patients and families, facilitate safety behaviors, and forge stronger partnerships with clinicians.

Inpatient patient safety events in vulnerable populations: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Widespread attention to structural racism has heightened interest in disparities in the quality of care delivered to racial/ethnic minorities and other vulnerable populations. These groups may also be at increased risk of patient safety events. OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in inpatient patient safety events for vulnerable populations defined by race/ethnicity, insurance status and limited English proficiency (LEP). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Single tertiary care academic medical centre. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient admissions of those aged ≥18 years from 1 October 2014 to 31 December 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Primary exposures of interest were self-identified race/ethnicity, Medicaid insurance/uninsured and LEP. The primary outcome of interest was the total number of patient safety events, defined as any event identified by a modified version of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement global trigger tool that automatically identifies patient safety events ('automated') from the electronic record or by the hospital-wide voluntary provider reporting system ('voluntary'). Negative binomial models were used to adjust for demographic and clinical factors. We also stratified results by automated and voluntary. RESULTS: We studied 141 877 hospitalisations, of which 13.6% had any patient safety event. In adjusted analyses, Asian race/ethnicity was associated with a lower event rate (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96); LEP patients had a lower risk of any patient safety event and voluntary events (IRR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.96; IRR 0.89, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.94). Asian and Latino race/ethnicity were also associated with a lower rate of voluntary events but no difference in risk of automated events. Black race was associated with an increased risk of automated events (IRR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.20). LIMITATIONS: This is a single centre study. CONCLUSIONS: A commonly used method for monitoring patient safety problems, namely voluntary incident reporting, may underdetect safety events in vulnerable populations.

Ensuring successful implementation of communication-and-resolution programmes.

BACKGROUND: Communication-and-resolution programmes (CRP) aim to increase transparency surrounding adverse events, improve patient safety and promote reconciliation by proactively meeting injured patients' needs. Although early adopters of CRP models reported relatively smooth implementation, other organisations have struggled to achieve the same. However, two Massachusetts hospital systems implementing a CRP demonstrated high fidelity to protocol without raising liability costs. STUDY QUESTION: What factors may account for the Massachusetts hospitals' ability to implement their CRP successfully? SETTING: The CRP was collaboratively designed by two academic medical centres, four of their community hospitals and a multistakeholder coalition. DATA AND METHODS: Data were synthesised from (1) key informant interviews around the time of implementation and 2 years later with individuals important to the CRP's success and (2) notes from 89 teleconferences between hospitals' CRP implementation teams and study staff to discuss implementation progress. Interview transcripts and teleconference notes were analysed using standard methods of thematic content analysis. A total of 45 individuals participated in interviews (n=24 persons in 38 interviews), teleconferences (n=32) or both (n=11). RESULTS: Participants identified facilitators of the hospitals' success as: (1) the support of top institutional leaders, (2) heavy investments in educating physicians about the programme, (3) active cultivation of the relationship between hospital risk managers and representatives from the liability insurer, (4) the use of formal decision protocols, (5) effective oversight by full-time project managers, (6) collaborative group implementation, and (7) small institutional size. CONCLUSION: Although not necessarily causal, several distinctive factors appear to be associated with successful CRP implementation.

A patient and family reporting system for perceived ambulatory note mistakes: experience at 3 U.S. healthcare centers.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to test a patient and family online reporting system for perceived ambulatory visit note inaccuracies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We implemented a patient and family electronic reporting system at 3 U.S. healthcare centers: a northeast urban academic adult medical center (AD), a northeast urban academic pediatric medical center (PED), and a southeast nonprofit hospital network (NET). Patients and families reported potential documentation inaccuracies after reading primary care and subspecialty visit notes. Results were characterized using descriptive statistics and coded for clinical relevance. RESULTS: We received 1440 patient and family reports (780 AD, 402 PED, and 258 NET), and 27% of the reports identified a potential inaccuracy (25% AD, 35% PED, 28% NET). Among these, patients and families indicated that the potential inaccuracy was important or very important in 58% of reports (55% AD, 55% PED, 71% NET). The most common types of potential inaccuracies included description of symptoms (21%), past medical problems (21%), medications (18%), and important information that was missing (15%). Most patient- and family-reported inaccuracies resulted in a change to care or to the medical record (55% AD, 67% PED, data not available at NET). DISCUSSION: About one-quarter of patients and families using an online reporting system identified potential documentation inaccuracies in visit notes and more than half were considered important by patients and clinicians, underscoring the potential role of patients and families as ambulatory safety partners. CONCLUSIONS: Partnering with patients and families to obtain reports on inaccuracies in visit notes may contribute to safer care. Mechanisms to encourage greater use of patient and family reporting systems are needed.

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.

Development of a framework to describe patient and family harm from disrespect and promote improvements in quality and safety: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Patients and families may experience 'non-physical' harm from interactions with the healthcare system, including emotional, psychological, socio-behavioral or financial harm, some of which may be related to experiences of disrespect. We sought to use the current literature to develop a practical, improvement-oriented framework to recognize, describe and help prevent such events. DATA SOURCES: Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Health Business Elite and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses: Global: Health & Medicine, from their inception through July 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors reviewed titles, abstracts, full texts, references and cited-by lists to identify articles describing approaches to understanding patient/family experiences of disrespect. DATA EXTRACTION: Findings were evaluated using integrative review methodology. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Three-thousand eight hundred and eighty two abstracts were reviewed. Twenty three articles were identified. Components of experiences of disrespect included: (1) numerous care processes; (2) a wide range of healthcare professional and organizational behaviors; (3) contributing factors, including patient- and professional-related factors, the environment of work and care, leadership, policies, processes and culture; (4) important consequences of disrespect, including behavioral changes and health impacts on patients and families, negative effects on professionals' subsequent interactions, and patient attrition from organizations and (5) factors both intrinsic and extrinsic to patients that can modify the consequences of disrespect. CONCLUSION: A generalizable framework for understanding disrespect experienced by patients/families in healthcare may help organizations better prevent non-physical harms. Future work should prospectively test and refine the framework we described so as to facilitate its integration into organizations' existing operational systems.

Failures in the Respectful Care of Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: The emotional toll of critical illness on patients and their families can be profound and is emerging as an important target for value improvement. One source of emotional harm to patients and families may be care perceived as inadequately respectful. The prevalence and risk factors for types of emotional harms is under-studied. METHODS: This prospective cohort study was conducted in nine ICUs at a tertiary care academic medical center in the United States. Prevalence of inadequate respect for (a) the patient and (b) the family, as well as prevalence of perceived lack of control over the care of their loved ones, was assessed by the Family Satisfaction with Care in the Intensive Care Unit instrument. The relationship between these outcomes with demographic and clinical covariates was assessed. Stratification by patient survivorship was performed in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Of more than 1,500 respondents, 16.9% and 21.8% reported that the patient or the family member, respectively, received inadequate respect. No clinical characteristics of the patients were associated with inadequate respect for either the patient or the family member. By comparison, more than half of respondents reported a lack of control over their loved one's care; this finding was associated with multiple clinical factors. Prevalence and associated factors differed by patient survivorship status. CONCLUSION: Care that is inadequately respectful to patients and families in the setting of critical illness is prevalent but does not appear to be associated with clinical characteristics. The incidence of such emotional harms is nuanced, difficult to predict, and deserves further investigation.

Effects Of A Communication-And-Resolution Program On Hospitals' Malpractice Claims And Costs.

To promote communication with patients after medical injuries and improve patient safety, numerous hospitals have implemented communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs). Through these programs, hospitals communicate transparently with patients after adverse events; investigate what happened and offer an explanation; and, when warranted, apologize, take responsibility, and proactively offer compensation. Despite growing consensus that CRPs are the right thing to do, concerns over liability risks remain. We evaluated the liability effects of CRP implementation at four Massachusetts hospitals by examining before-and-after trends in claims volume, cost, and time to resolution and comparing them to trends among nonimplementing peer institutions. CRP implementation was associated with improved trends in the rate of new claims and legal defense costs at some hospitals, but it did not significantly alter trends in other outcomes. None of the hospitals experienced worsening liability trends after CRP implementation, which suggests that transparency, apology, and proactive compensation can be pursued without adverse financial consequences.

A Road Map for Advancing the Practice of Respect in Health Care: The Results of an Interdisciplinary Modified Delphi Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Most health care organizations' efforts to reduce harm focus on physical harm, but other forms of harm are both prevalent and important. These "nonphysical" harms can be framed using the concepts of respect and dignity: Disrespect is an affront to dignity and can cause harm. Organizations should strive to eliminate disrespect to patients, to families, and among health care professionals. METHODS: A diverse, interdisciplinary panel of experts was convened to discuss strategies to guide health care systems to embrace an expanded definition of patient harm that includes nonphysical harm. Subsequently, using a modified Delphi process, a guide was developed for health care professionals and organizations to improve the practice of respect across the continuum of care. RESULTS: Five rounds of surveys were required to reach predefined metrics of consensus. Delphi participants identified a total of 25 strategies associated with six high-level recommendations: "Leaders must champion a culture of respect and dignity"; with other professionals sharing the responsibility to "Promote accountability"; "Engage and support the health care workforce"; "Partner with patients and families"; "Establish systems to learn about and improve the practice of respect"; and "Expand the research agenda and measurement tools, and disseminate what is learned." CONCLUSION: Harm from disrespect is the next frontier in preventable harm. This consensus statement provides a road map for health care organizations and professionals interested in engaging in a reliable practice of respect. Further work is needed to develop the specific tactics that will lead health care organizations to prevent harm from disrespect.

Surveying Care Teams after in-Hospital Deaths to Identify Preventable Harm and Opportunities to Improve Advance Care Planning.

BACKGROUND: Reviewing in-hospital deaths is one way of learning how to improve the quality and safety of care. Postdeath surveys sent to the care team for patients who died may have a role in identifying opportunities for improvement. As part of a quality improvement initiative, a postdeath care team survey was developed to explore how it might augment the existing process for learning from deaths. METHODS: A survey was sent to the care team for all inpatient deaths on the hospital medicine and medical ICU services at one institution. Survey responses were reviewed to identify cases that required further investigation. An iterative process of inductive coding was used to create a coding taxonomy to classify survey response free-text comments. RESULTS: During the distribution period (September 25, 2015-December 28, 2015), 82 patients died, and 191 care team members were surveyed. Responses (138; 72.3% response rate) were collected through January 28, 2016. Based on the survey responses, 5 patients (6.1%) not identified by other review processes were investigated further, resulting in the identification of several important opportunities for improvement. The free-text comment analysis revealed themes around the importance of advance care planning in seriously ill patients, as well as evidence of the emotional and psychological strain on clinicians who care for patients who die. CONCLUSION: Postdeath care team surveys can augment mortality review processes to improve the way hospitals learn from deaths. Free-text comments on such surveys provide information not otherwise identified during traditional mortality review processes, including the importance of advance care planning and the strain on clinicians whose patients die.

The Practice of Respect in the ICU.

Although "respect" and "dignity" are intuitive concepts, little formal work has addressed their systematic application in the ICU setting. After convening a multidisciplinary group of relevant experts, we undertook a review of relevant literature and collaborative discussions focused on the practice of respect in the ICU. We report the output of this process, including a summary of current knowledge, a conceptual framework, and a research program for understanding and improving the practice of respect and dignity in the ICU. We separate our report into findings and proposals. Findings include the following: 1) dignity and respect are interrelated; 2) ICU patients and families are vulnerable to disrespect; 3) violations of respect and dignity appear to be common in the ICU and overlap substantially with dehumanization; 4) disrespect may be associated with both primary and secondary harms; and 5) systemic barriers complicate understanding and the reliable practice of respect in the ICU. Proposals include: 1) initiating and/or expanding a field of research on the practice of respect in the ICU; 2) treating "failures of respect" as analogous to patient safety events and using existing quality and safety mechanisms for improvement; and 3) identifying both benefits and potential unintended consequences of efforts to improve the practice of respect. Respect and dignity are important considerations in the ICU, even as substantial additional research remains to be done.

Outcomes In Two Massachusetts Hospital Systems Give Reason For Optimism About Communication-And-Resolution Programs.

Through communication-and-resolution programs, hospitals and liability insurers communicate with patients when adverse events occur; investigate and explain what happened; and, where appropriate, apologize and proactively offer compensation. Using data recorded by program staff members and from surveys of involved clinicians, we examined case outcomes of a program used by two academic medical centers and two of their community hospitals in Massachusetts in the period 2013-15. The hospitals demonstrated good adherence to the program protocol. Ninety-one percent of the program events did not meet compensation eligibility criteria, and those events that did were not costly to resolve (the median payment was $75,000). Only 5 percent of events led to malpractice claims or lawsuits. Clinicians were supportive of the program but desired better communication about it from staff members. Our findings suggest that communication-and-resolution programs will not lead to higher liability costs when hospitals adhere to their commitment to offer compensation proactively.

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.

A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships.

BACKGROUND: OpenNotes, a national movement inviting patients to read their clinicians' notes online, may enhance safety through patient-reported documentation errors. OBJECTIVE: To test an OpenNotes patient reporting tool focused on safety concerns. METHODS: We invited 6225 patients through a patient portal to provide note feedback in a quality improvement pilot between August 2014 and 2015. A link at the end of the note led to a 9-question survey. Patient Relations personnel vetted responses, shared safety concerns with providers and documented whether changes were made. RESULTS: 2736/6225(44%) of patients read notes; among these, 1 in 12 patients used the tool, submitting 260 reports. Nearly all (96%) respondents reported understanding the note. Patients and care partners documented potential safety concerns in 23% of reports; 2% did not understand the care plan and 21% reported possible mistakes, including medications, existing health problems, something important missing from the note or current symptoms. Among these, 64% were definite or possible safety concerns on clinician review, and 57% of cases confirmed with patients resulted in a change to the record or care. The feedback tool exceeded the reporting rate of our ambulatory online clinician adverse event reporting system several-fold. After a year, 99% of patients and care partners found the tool valuable, 97% wanted it to continue, 98% reported unchanged or improved relationships with their clinician, and none of the providers in the small pilot reported worsening workflow or relationships with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and care partners reported potential safety concerns in about one-quarter of reports, often resulting in a change to the record or care. Early data from an OpenNotes patient reporting tool may help engage patients as safety partners without apparent negative consequences for clinician workflow or patient-clinician relationships.