Background Following a 2010-2011 pilot intervention in which a limited sample of primary care doctors offered their patients secure Web-based portal access to their office visit notes, the participating sites expanded OpenNotes to nearly all clinicians in primary care, medical, and surgical specialty practices. Objective The aim of this study was to examine the ongoing experiences and perceptions of patients who read ambulatory visit notes written by a broad range of doctors, nurses, and other clinicians. Methods A total of 3 large US health systems in Boston, Seattle, and rural Pennsylvania conducted a Web-based survey of adult patients who used portal accounts and had at least 1 visit note available in a recent 12-month period. The main outcome measures included patient-reported behaviors and their perceptions concerning benefits versus risks. Results Among 136,815 patients who received invitations, 21.68% (29,656/136,815) responded. Of the 28,782 patient respondents, 62.82% (18,081/28,782) were female, 72.90% (20,982/28,782) were aged 45 years or older, 76.94% (22,146/28,782) were white, and 14.30% (4115/28,782) reported fair or poor health. Among the 22,947 who reported reading 1 or more notes, 3 out of 4 reported reading them for 1 year or longer, half reported reading at least 4 notes, and 37.74% (8588/22,753) shared a note with someone else. Patients rated note reading as very important for helping take care of their health (16,354/22,520, 72.62%), feeling in control of their care (15,726/22,515, 69.85%), and remembering the plan of care (14,821/22,516, 65.82%). Few were very confused (737/22,304, 3.3%) or more worried (1078/22,303, 4.83%) after reading notes. About a third reported being encouraged by their clinicians to read notes and a third told their clinicians they had read them. Less educated, nonwhite, older, and Hispanic patients, and individuals who usually did not speak English at home, were those most likely to report major benefits from note reading. Nearly all respondents (22,593/22,947, 98.46%) thought Web-based access to visit notes a good idea, and 62.38% (13,427/21,525) rated this practice as very important for choosing a future provider. Conclusions In this first large-scale survey of patient experiences with a broad range of clinicians working in practices in which shared notes are well established, patients find note reading very important for their health management and share their notes frequently with others. Patients are rarely troubled by what they read, and those traditionally underserved in the United States report particular benefit. However, fewer than half of clinicians and patients actively address their shared notes during visits. As the practice continues to spread rapidly in the United States and internationally, our findings indicate that OpenNotes brings benefits to patients that largely outweigh the risks.

Introduction:The Learning Health Care System (LHCS) model seeks to utilize sophisticated technologies and competencies to integrate clinical operations, research and patient participation in order to continuously generate knowledge, improve care, and deliver value. Transitioning from concept to practical application of an LHCS presents many challenges but can yield opportunities for continuous improvement. There is limited literature and practical experience available in operationalizing the LHCS in the context of an integrated health system. At Geisinger Health System (GHS) a multi-stakeholder group is undertaking to enhance organizational learning and develop a plan for operationalizing the LHCS system-wide. We present a framework for operationalizing continuous learning across an integrated delivery system and lessons learned through the ongoing planning process.Framework:The framework focuses attention on nine key LHCS operational components: Data and Analytics; People and Partnerships; Patient and Family Engagement; Ethics and Oversight; Evaluation and Methodology; Funding; Organization; Prioritization; and Deliverables. Definitions, key elements and examples for each are presented. The framework is purposefully broad for application across different organizational contexts.Conclusion:A realistic assessment of the culture, resources and capabilities of the organization related to learning is critical to defining the scope of operationalization. Engaging patients in clinical care and discovery, including quality improvement and comparative effectiveness research, requires a defensible ethical framework that undergirds a system of strong but flexible oversight. Leadership support is imperative for advancement of the LHCS model. Findings from our ongoing work within the proposed framework may inform other organizations considering a transition to an LHCS.

We examined the acceptability and effects of delivering doctors' visit notes electronically (via OpenNotes) to patients and care partners with authorized access to patients' electronic medical records. Adult patients and care partners at Geisinger Health System were surveyed at baseline and after 12 months of exposure to OpenNotes. Reporting on care partner access to OpenNotes, patients and care partners stated that they had better agreement about patient treatment plans and more productive discussions about their care. At follow-up, patients were more confident in their ability to manage their health, felt better prepared for office visits, and reported understanding their care better than at baseline. Care partners were more likely to access and use patient portal functionality and reported improved communication with patients' providers at follow-up. Our findings suggest that offering patients and care partners access to doctors' notes is acceptable and improves communication and patients' confidence in managing their care.

IMPORTANCE As health information transparency increases, patients more often seek their health data. More than 44 million patients in the US can now readily access their ambulatory visit notes online, and the practice is increasing abroad. Few studies have assessed documentation errors that patients identify in their notes and how these may inform patient engagement and safety strategies. OBJECTIVE To assess the frequency and types of errors identified by patients who read open ambulatory visit notes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this survey study, a total of 136 815 patients at 3 US health care organizations with open notes, including 79 academic and community ambulatory care practices, received invitations to an online survey from June 5 to October 20, 2017. Patients who had at least 1 ambulatory note and had logged onto the portal at least once in the past 12 months were included. Data analysis was performed from July 3, 2018, to April 27, 2020. EXPOSURES Access to ambulatory care open notes through patient portals for up to 7 years (2010-2017). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Proportion of patients reporting a mistake and how serious they perceived the mistake to be, factors associated with finding errors characterized by patients as serious, and categories of patient-reported errors. RESULTS Of 136 815 patients who received survey invitations, 29 656 (21.7%) responded and 22 889 patients (mean [SD] age, 55.16 [15.96] years; 14 447 [63.1%] female; 18 301 [80.0%] white) read 1 or more notes in the past 12 months and completed error questions. Of these patients, 4830 (21.1%) reported a perceived mistake and 2043 (42.3%) reported that the mistake was serious

IntroductionElectronic health record (EHR) data enhance opportunities for conducting surveillance of diabetes. The objective of this study was to identify the number of people with diabetes from a diabetes DataLink developed as part of the SUPREME-DM (SUrveillance, PREvention, and ManagEment of Diabetes Mellitus) project, a consortium of 11 integrated health systems that use comprehensive EHR data for research.MethodsWe identified all members of 11 health care systems who had any enrollment from January 2005 through December 2009. For these members, we searched inpatient and outpatient diagnosis codes, laboratory test results, and pharmaceutical dispensings from January 2000 through December 2009 to create indicator variables that could potentially identify a person with diabetes. Using this information, we estimated the number of people with diabetes and among them, the number of incident cases, defined as indication of diabetes after at least 2 years of continuous health system enrollment.ResultsThe 11 health systems contributed 15,765,529 unique members, of whom 1,085,947 (6.9%) met 1 or more study criteria for diabetes. The nonstandardized proportion meeting study criteria for diabetes ranged from 4.2% to 12.4% across sites. Most members with diabetes (88%) met multiple criteria. Of the members with diabetes, 428,349 (39.4%) were incident cases.ConclusionThe SUPREME-DM DataLink is a unique resource that provides an opportunity to conduct comparative effectiveness research, epidemiologic surveillance including longitudinal analyses, and population-based care management studies of people with diabetes. It also provides a useful data source for pragmatic clinical trials of prevention or treatment interventions.