Psychiatrists' perceptions of conditions and consequences associated with the implementation of open notes: qualitative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: In a growing list of countries, patients are granted access to their clinical notes ("open notes") as part of their online record access. Especially in the field of mental health, open notes remain controversial with some clinicians perceiving open notes as a tool for improving therapeutic outcomes by increasing patient involvement, while others fear that patients might experience psychological distress and perceived stigmatization, particularly when reading clinicians' notes. More research is needed to optimize the benefits and mitigate the risks. METHODS: Using a qualitative research design, we conducted semi-structured interviews with psychiatrists practicing in Germany, to explore what conditions they believe need to be in place to ensure successful implementation of open notes in psychiatric practice as well as expected subsequent changes to their workload and treatment outcomes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We interviewed 18 psychiatrists; interviewees believed four key conditions needed to be in place prior to implementation of open notes including careful consideration of (1) diagnoses and symptom severity, (2) the availability of additional time for writing clinical notes and discussing them with patients, (3) available resources and system compatibility, and (4) legal and data protection aspects. As a result of introducing open notes, interviewees expected changes in documentation, treatment processes, and doctor-physician interaction. While open notes were expected to improve transparency and trust, participants anticipated negative unintended consequences including the risk of deteriorating therapeutic relationships due to note access-related misunderstandings and conflicts. CONCLUSION: Psychiatrists practiced in Germany where open notes have not yet been established as part of the healthcare data infrastructure. Interviewees were supportive of open notes but had some reservations. They found open notes to be generally beneficial but anticipated effects to vary depending on patient characteristics. Clear guidelines for managing access, time constraints, usability, and privacy are crucial. Open notes were perceived to increase transparency and patient involvement but were also believed to raise issues of stigmatization and conflicts.

Therapeutic stance towards persons with psychosis - a Grounded Theory study.

OBJECTIVE: Over the last decades, psychotherapy of psychosis has increasingly gained attention. The quality of the therapeutic alliance has been shown to have an impact on therapy outcome. Yet, little is know about the influence of the therapeutic stance on the alliance. In this study, we explore psychotherapists' stance towards persons with psychosis with the aim of better understanding its characteristic-hindering and helpful-aspects. METHOD: 6 semi-structured interviews with psychotherapists from three different schools (CBT, PD, ST) were analysed with Grounded Theory. Credibility was checked through external and peer-researcher-supported debriefing. RESULTS: 4 core categories were generated and interrelated in a theoretical model. Therapists' stance was initially characterized by insecurity. Diffent ways of dealing with insecurity yielded different stances: a monological and an open one. A helpful stance was conceived as stemming from openness and was characterized by a dialogical structure. A co-presence (or "dosing") of you and I was conceived as its core aspect. CONCLUSION: These findings specify the interpersonal dynamics arising from different stances and their impact on the therapeutic alliance and process. Research is still needed to further understand the characteristics of helpful and hindering therapeutic stances, which should also inform the training of psychotherapists.

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.