Back to Search Start Over

Open notes sounds great, but will a provider’s documentation change? An exploratory study of the effect of open notes on oncology documentation

Authors :
Robin Joyce
S. Trent Rosenbloom
Maryam Rahimian
Liz Salmi
Jeremy L. Warner
Roger B. Davis
Source :
JAMIA Open
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
Oxford University Press, 2021.

Abstract

Objective The effects of shared clinical notes on patients, care partners, and clinicians (“open notes”) were first studied as a demonstration project in 2010. Since then, multiple studies have shown clinicians agree shared progress notes are beneficial to patients, and patients and care partners report benefits from reading notes. To determine if implementing open notes at a hematology/oncology practice changed providers’ documentation style, we assessed the length and readability of clinicians’ notes before and after open notes implementation at an academic medical center in Boston, MA, USA. Materials and Methods We analyzed 143 888 notes from 60 hematology/oncology clinicians before and after the open notes debut at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, from January 1, 2012 to September 1, 2016. We measured the providers’ (medical doctor/nurse practitioner) documentation styles by analyzing character length, the number of addenda, note entry mode (dictated vs typed), and note readability. Measurements used 5 different readability formulas and were assessed on notes written before and after the introduction of open notes on November 25, 2013. Results After the introduction of open notes, the mean length of progress notes increased from 6174 characters to 6648 characters (P Conclusions After the implementation of open notes, progress notes and A&P sections became both longer and easier to read. This suggests clinician documenters may be responding to the perceived pressures of a transparent medical records environment.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
25742531
Volume :
4
Issue :
3
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
JAMIA Open
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....c56f4ab7be0ebd57b688ff5f6f9e6fa5