Objectives(A) To gain insights into the experiences of patients invited to view their doctors’ visit notes, with a focus on those who review multiple notes; (B) to examine the relationships among fully transparent electronic medical records and quality of care, the patient-doctor relationship, patient engagement, self-care, self-management skills and clinical outcomes.DesignMixed methods qualitative study: analyses of survey data, including content analysis of free-text answers, and quantitative-descriptive measures combined with semistructured individual interviews, patient activation measures, and member checks.SettingGreater Boston, USA.ParticipantsPatients cared for by primary care physicians (PCPs) at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who had electronic access to their PCP visit notes. Among those submitting surveys, 576 free-text answers were identified and analysed (414 from female patients, 162 from male patients; 23–88 years). In addition, 13 patients (9 female, 4 male; 58–87 years) were interviewed.ResultsPatient experiences indicate improved understanding (of health information), better relationships (with doctors), better quality (adherence and compliance; keeping track) and improved self-care (patient-centredness, empowerment). Patients want more doctors to offer access to their notes, and some wish to contribute to their generation. Those patients with repeated experience reviewing notes express fewer concerns and more perceived benefits.ConclusionsAs the use of fully transparent medical records spreads, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of possible benefits or harms, and to characterise target populations that may require varying modes of delivery. Patient desires for expansion of this practice extend to specialty care and settings beyond the physician's office. Patients are also interested in becoming involved actively in the generation of their medical records. The OpenNotes movement may increase patient activation and engagement in important ways.

Oncology practice attributes warranting further testing were identified that may lower total spending for high-quality oncology care.

The implementation of computerized critical care information systems (CCIS) can improve the quality of clinical care and staff satisfaction, but also holds risks of disrupting the workflow with consecutive negative impacts. The usability of CCIS is one of the key factors determining their benefits and weaknesses. However, no tailored instrument exists to measure the usability of such systems. Therefore, the aim of this study was to design and validate a questionnaire that measures the usability of CCIS. Following a mixed-method design approach, we developed a questionnaire comprising two evaluation models to assess the usability of CCIS: (1) the task-specific model rates the usability individually for several tasks which CCIS could support and which we derived by analyzing work processes in the ICU; (2) the characteristic-specific model rates the different aspects of the usability, as defined by the international standard "ergonomics of human-system interaction". We tested validity and reliability of the digital version of the questionnaire in a sample population. In the sample population of 535 participants both usability evaluation models showed a strong correlation with the overall rating of the system (multiple correlation coefficients ≥0.80) as well as a very high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.93). The novel questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument to measure the usability of CCIS and can be used to study the influence of the usability on their implementation benefits and weaknesses.

No abstract

Our results suggest that manufacturers should shift some of their effort away from the development of new features and focus more on improving the ease-of-use and quality of existing features.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract