Impact of online patient access to clinical notes on quality of care: a systematic review.

IF 5.6 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yoko Yoshimura, Geva Greenfield, Elena Lammila-Escalera, Brian Mcmillan, Benedict Hayhoe, Azeem Majeed, Ana Luisa Neves
{"title":"Impact of online patient access to clinical notes on quality of care: a systematic review.","authors":"Yoko Yoshimura, Geva Greenfield, Elena Lammila-Escalera, Brian Mcmillan, Benedict Hayhoe, Azeem Majeed, Ana Luisa Neves","doi":"10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Access to electronic health records (EHRs) has the potential to improve the quality of care. Clinical notes, free-text entries documenting clinicians' observations and decisions, are central to EHRs. Sharing these notes may reduce information asymmetry, enhance transparency and empower patients. However, their impact on care quality remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the impact of sharing clinical notes online with patients on the domains of quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, safety, timeliness and equity).</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>A systematic review was conducted with no time limit, using CINAHL, Cochrane, OVID Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO. A narrative synthesis method was employed to extract the study characteristics, and reported outcomes were organised using the six IOM quality domains. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies involving 203 152 participants met inclusion criteria. Outcomes included patient-centredness (n=16), patient safety (n=14), equity (n=6), efficiency (n=4), timeliness (n=0) and effectiveness (n=0). Patient-centredness studies reported high satisfaction (n=6), increased engagement (n=11) and stronger patient-provider trust (n=7). Patient safety studies noted improvements in medication adherence (n=4) and note accuracy (n=5), alongside privacy concerns (n=5). Equity studies found benefits for minority (n=3) and less-educated patients (n=2), with one reporting equitable outcomes (n=1). No significant changes in efficiency were observed (n=4).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Online sharing of clinical notes with patients positively impacted self-reported patient-centredness and patient safety, particularly benefiting underserved populations. However, privacy concerns must be effectively addressed, and robust safeguarding is essential to mitigate confidentiality issues. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impact on timeliness, effectiveness and efficiency of care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9077,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Quality & Safety","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Quality & Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2024-018363","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Access to electronic health records (EHRs) has the potential to improve the quality of care. Clinical notes, free-text entries documenting clinicians' observations and decisions, are central to EHRs. Sharing these notes may reduce information asymmetry, enhance transparency and empower patients. However, their impact on care quality remains unclear.

Aim: To assess the impact of sharing clinical notes online with patients on the domains of quality as defined by the Institute of Medicine (ie, patient-centredness, effectiveness, efficiency, safety, timeliness and equity).

Methodology: A systematic review was conducted with no time limit, using CINAHL, Cochrane, OVID Embase, HMIC, Medline/PubMed and PsycINFO. A narrative synthesis method was employed to extract the study characteristics, and reported outcomes were organised using the six IOM quality domains. The risk of bias of included studies was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.

Results: Nineteen studies involving 203 152 participants met inclusion criteria. Outcomes included patient-centredness (n=16), patient safety (n=14), equity (n=6), efficiency (n=4), timeliness (n=0) and effectiveness (n=0). Patient-centredness studies reported high satisfaction (n=6), increased engagement (n=11) and stronger patient-provider trust (n=7). Patient safety studies noted improvements in medication adherence (n=4) and note accuracy (n=5), alongside privacy concerns (n=5). Equity studies found benefits for minority (n=3) and less-educated patients (n=2), with one reporting equitable outcomes (n=1). No significant changes in efficiency were observed (n=4).

Discussion: Online sharing of clinical notes with patients positively impacted self-reported patient-centredness and patient safety, particularly benefiting underserved populations. However, privacy concerns must be effectively addressed, and robust safeguarding is essential to mitigate confidentiality issues. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term impact on timeliness, effectiveness and efficiency of care.

在线患者访问临床记录对护理质量的影响:一项系统综述。
背景:获取电子健康记录(EHRs)具有提高护理质量的潜力。临床记录,记录临床医生观察和决定的自由文本条目,是电子病历的核心。分享这些记录可以减少信息不对称,提高透明度,并赋予患者权力。然而,它们对护理质量的影响尚不清楚。目的:评估与患者在线共享临床记录对医学研究所定义的质量领域(即以患者为中心、有效性、效率、安全性、及时性和公平性)的影响。方法:使用CINAHL、Cochrane、OVID Embase、HMIC、Medline/PubMed和PsycINFO进行无时间限制的系统评价。采用叙事综合方法提取研究特征,并使用六个IOM质量域组织报告结果。采用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。结果:19项研究共203,152名受试者符合纳入标准。结果包括以患者为中心(n=16)、患者安全(n=14)、公平(n=6)、效率(n=4)、及时性(n=0)和有效性(n=0)。以患者为中心的研究报告了高满意度(n=6),增加的参与(n=11)和更强的患者-提供者信任(n=7)。患者安全研究注意到药物依从性(n=4)和笔记准确性(n=5)的改善,以及隐私问题(n=5)。公平研究发现少数群体(n=3)和受教育程度较低的患者(n=2)受益,其中1例报告了公平的结果(n=1)。没有观察到明显的效率变化(n=4)。讨论:与患者在线分享临床记录对自我报告的以患者为中心和患者安全产生积极影响,特别是对服务不足的人群有益。然而,必须有效地解决隐私问题,并且强大的保护对于减轻机密性问题至关重要。需要进一步的研究来评估对护理及时性、有效性和效率的长期影响。
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
BMJ Quality & Safety
BMJ Quality & Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
104
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMJ Quality & Safety (previously Quality & Safety in Health Care) is an international peer review publication providing research, opinions, debates and reviews for academics, clinicians and healthcare managers focused on the quality and safety of health care and the science of improvement. The journal receives approximately 1000 manuscripts a year and has an acceptance rate for original research of 12%. Time from submission to first decision averages 22 days and accepted articles are typically published online within 20 days. Its current impact factor is 3.281.
×
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