Determining implementation issues of open notes in primary care: a focus group study.

IF 2 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Marianne Dees, Sevde Alkir-Yurt, Gert Olthuis, Jozé Braspenning
{"title":"Determining implementation issues of open notes in primary care: a focus group study.","authors":"Marianne Dees, Sevde Alkir-Yurt, Gert Olthuis, Jozé Braspenning","doi":"10.1186/s12875-025-02805-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In several countries, patients have online access to medical records (open notes) contributing to patient engagement and healthcare outcomes. However, usage is still low. Healthcare professionals' viewpoints on open notes are under-represented in existing reviews. And a systematic framework to understand the implementation is lacking. Using the 'capability approach', we evaluated the value of open notes by examining influencing factors and capabilities (opportunities and challenges) of patients and staff in general practices.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Qualitative research was conducted in 10 Dutch general practices (19 healthcare professionals and 29 patients) that were included through purposive sampling aiming at a diversity of practices and patients. Three focus groups were held with primary care staff and 10 with patients, led by an experienced facilitator using a topic guide. Content analysis was used for the transcripts of the focus groups; coded in ATLAS.ti in three rounds by two researchers independently. The results were discussed with the research team to identify factors and capabilities that could affect the usability of open notes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Personal, social, and environmental factors appeared to influence the use of open notes, such as digital and health literacy, social support from and within the practice, and legislation and regulation. Patients and healthcare professionals agreed on most of these factors. From the capabilities, four implementation themes were identified. First, ambiguity about ownership of medical records and concerns about data integrity should be addressed. Second, the change in practice organization and the care process caused by open notes need practical support. Third, fear of the unknown and unintended consequences of open notes must be considered. Fourth, the introduced change to the healthcare professional-patient relationship requires additional skills. These themes applied to both patients and healthcare professionals, but the differences became clear in the details.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study provides insight into how patients and healthcare professionals experience open notes. Besides the practical barriers and facilitators, patients and healthcare professionals addressed four implementation themes that should guide the further implementation of open notes to improve patient engagement and health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":72428,"journal":{"name":"BMC primary care","volume":"26 1","pages":"119"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12016350/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC primary care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-025-02805-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In several countries, patients have online access to medical records (open notes) contributing to patient engagement and healthcare outcomes. However, usage is still low. Healthcare professionals' viewpoints on open notes are under-represented in existing reviews. And a systematic framework to understand the implementation is lacking. Using the 'capability approach', we evaluated the value of open notes by examining influencing factors and capabilities (opportunities and challenges) of patients and staff in general practices.

Method: Qualitative research was conducted in 10 Dutch general practices (19 healthcare professionals and 29 patients) that were included through purposive sampling aiming at a diversity of practices and patients. Three focus groups were held with primary care staff and 10 with patients, led by an experienced facilitator using a topic guide. Content analysis was used for the transcripts of the focus groups; coded in ATLAS.ti in three rounds by two researchers independently. The results were discussed with the research team to identify factors and capabilities that could affect the usability of open notes.

Results: Personal, social, and environmental factors appeared to influence the use of open notes, such as digital and health literacy, social support from and within the practice, and legislation and regulation. Patients and healthcare professionals agreed on most of these factors. From the capabilities, four implementation themes were identified. First, ambiguity about ownership of medical records and concerns about data integrity should be addressed. Second, the change in practice organization and the care process caused by open notes need practical support. Third, fear of the unknown and unintended consequences of open notes must be considered. Fourth, the introduced change to the healthcare professional-patient relationship requires additional skills. These themes applied to both patients and healthcare professionals, but the differences became clear in the details.

Conclusion: The study provides insight into how patients and healthcare professionals experience open notes. Besides the practical barriers and facilitators, patients and healthcare professionals addressed four implementation themes that should guide the further implementation of open notes to improve patient engagement and health outcomes.

确定初级保健中开放式笔记的实施问题:焦点小组研究。
背景:在一些国家,患者可以在线访问医疗记录(开放式笔记),这有助于患者参与和医疗保健结果。然而,使用率仍然很低。在现有的评论中,医疗保健专业人员对开放式笔记的观点代表性不足。而且缺乏一个系统的框架来理解其实施。使用“能力方法”,我们通过检查全科实践中患者和工作人员的影响因素和能力(机遇和挑战)来评估开放式笔记的价值。方法:定性研究在10个荷兰全科诊所(19名卫生保健专业人员和29名患者)中进行,通过有目的的抽样包括针对多样化的做法和患者。由一名经验丰富的调解人使用主题指南领导,与初级保健工作人员举行了3个焦点小组,与患者举行了10个焦点小组。对焦点小组的笔录进行内容分析;用ATLAS编码。由两名研究人员独立进行了三轮测试。研究团队对结果进行了讨论,以确定可能影响开放式笔记可用性的因素和功能。结果:个人、社会和环境因素似乎影响了开放式笔记的使用,例如数字和健康素养、来自实践和实践内部的社会支持以及立法和法规。患者和医疗保健专业人员对这些因素的大部分是一致的。根据这些能力,确定了四个实施主题。首先,应解决医疗记录所有权的模糊性和对数据完整性的担忧。第二,开放笔记导致的实践组织和护理过程的变化需要实践支持。第三,必须考虑对未知和意外后果的恐惧。第四,医疗保健专业人员与患者关系的变化需要额外的技能。这些主题适用于患者和医疗保健专业人员,但在细节上的差异变得明显。结论:该研究为患者和医疗保健专业人员如何体验开放笔记提供了见解。除了实际障碍和促进因素外,患者和保健专业人员还讨论了四个实施主题,这些主题应指导进一步实施公开说明,以改善患者参与和健康结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信