Search

Abstract: In the last decade, many health organizations have embarked on a revolution in clinical communication. Using electronic devices, patients can now gain rapid access to their online clinical records. Legally, patients in many countries already have the right to obtain copies of their health records; however, the practice known as "open notes" is different. Via secure online health portals, patients are now able to access their test results, lists of medications, and the very words that clinicians write about them. Open notes are growing with most patients in the Nordic countries already offered access to their full electronic record. From April 2021, a new federal ruling in the United States mandates-with few exemptions-that providers offer patients access to their online notes (Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, Department of Health and Human Services, Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-03-04/pdf/2019-02224.pdf#page=99). Against these policy changes, only limited attention has been paid to the ethical question about whether patients with mental health conditions should access their notes, as mentioned in the articles by Strudwick, Yeung, and Gratzer (Front Psychiatry 10:917, 2019) and Blease, O'Neill, Walker, Hägglund, and Torous (Lancet Psychiatry 7:924-925, 2020). In this article, our goal is to motivate further inquiry into opening mental health notes to patients, particularly among persons with serious mental illness and those accessing psychological treatments. Using biomedical ethical principles to frame our discussion, we identify key empirical questions that must be pursued to inform ethical practice guidelines., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine differences in the quality of care provided by primary care nurse practitioners (PCNPs), primary care physicians (PCMDs), or both clinicians., Data Sources: Medicare part A and part B claims during 2012-2013., Study Design: Retrospective cohort design using standard risk-adjustment methodologies and propensity score weighting assessing 16 claims-based quality measures grouped into 4 domains of primary care: chronic disease management, preventable hospitalizations, adverse outcomes, and cancer screening., Extraction Methods: Continuously enrolled aged, disabled, and dual eligible beneficiaries who received at least 25% of their primary care services from a random sample of PCMDs, PCNPs, or both clinicians., Principal Findings: Beneficiaries attributed to PCNPs had lower hospital admissions, readmissions, inappropriate emergency department use, and low-value imaging for low back pain. Beneficiaries attributed to PCMDs were more likely than those attributed to PCNPs to receive chronic disease management and cancer screenings. Quality of care for beneficiaries jointly attributed to both clinicians generally scored in the middle of the PCNP and PCMD attributed beneficiaries with the exception of cancer screening., Conclusions: The quality of primary care varies by clinician type, with different strengths for PCNPs and PCMDs. These comparative advantages should be considered when determining how to organize primary care to Medicare beneficiaries.

The objective of this study was to examine RNs' experiences with health information technology (HIT) and their perceptions of the effect of this technology on quality of care and daily work. The adoption and use of HIT are expected to increase substantially over the next 5 years because of policy efforts at the federal and state levels. Given the size of the RN workforce and their critical role in healthcare delivery, their experiences with HIT could help adoption efforts. The method used was a nationally representative survey of 1500 nurses with a 56% response rate. Findings suggest wide variation in the availability of HIT functionality, with functions more likely available to hospital RNs. Overall, RNs perceived the effect of these technologies on quality of care and their daily work as positive. Ensuring that HIT systems are relevant to and usable for RNs will be a critical component in achieving the meaningful use of these systems.

Objective: To investigate specialist physicians' practice decisions in response to liability concerns and their perceptions of the impact of the malpractice environment on patient access to care., Summary Background Data: A perennial concern during "malpractice crises" is that liability costs will drive physicians in high-risk specialties out of practice, creating specialist shortages and access-to-care problems., Methods: Mail survey of 824 Pennsylvania physicians in general surgery, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, obstetrics/gynecology, emergency medicine, and radiology eliciting information on practice decisions made in response to rising liability costs., Results: Strong majorities of specialists reported increases over the last 3 years in patients' driving distances (58%) and waiting times (83%) for specialist care or surgery, waiting times for emergency department care (82%), and the number of patients forced to switch physicians (89%). Professional liability costs and managed care were both considered important contributing factors. Small proportions of specialists reported that they would definitely retire (7%) or relocate their practice out of state (4%) within the next 2 years; another third (32% and 29%, respectively) said they would likely do so. Forty-two percent of specialists have reduced or eliminated high-risk aspects of their practice, and 50% are likely to do so over the next 2 years., Conclusions: Our data suggest that claims of a "physician exodus" from Pennsylvania due to rising liability costs are overstated, but the malpractice situation is having demonstrable effects on the supply of specialist physicians in affected areas and their scope of practice, which likely impinges upon patients' access to care.