OpenNotes in oncology: oncologists’ perceptions and a baseline of the content and style of their clinician notes

Abstract

Patients' ability to access their provider's clinical notes (OpenNotes) has been well received and has led to greater transparency in health systems. However, the majority of this research has occurred in primary care, and little is known about how patients' access to notes is used in oncology. This study aims to understand oncologists' perceptions of OpenNotes, while also establishing a baseline of the linguistic characteristics and patterns used in notes.Data from 13 in-depth, semistructured interviews with oncologists were thematically analyzed. In addition, the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) program evaluated over 200 clinician notes, measuring variables encompassing emotions, thinking styles, social concerns, and parts of speech. Analysis from LIWC revealed that notes contained negative emotional tone, low authenticity, high clout, and high analytical writing. Oncologists' use of stigmatized and sensitive words, such as "obese" and "distress," was mainly absent. Themes from interviews revealed that oncologists were uncertain about patients' access to their notes and may edit their notes to avoid problematic terminology. Despite their reluctance to embrace OpenNotes, they envisioned opportunities for an improved patient-provider relationship due to patients initiating interactions from viewing notes.Oncologists believe notes are not intended for patients and altering their content may compromise the integrity of the note. This study established a baseline for further study to compare notes pre-implementation to post-implementation. Further analysis will clarify whether oncologists are altering the style and content of their notes and determine the presence of patient-centered language.

Understanding Patient Anxieties in the Social Media Era: Qualitative Analysis and Natural Language Processing of an Online Male Infertility Community

“…To conduct a semantic-based analysis, we used Language Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) 2015, an empirically validated textual analysis program capable of translating language into quantitative metrics related to different psychological processes (affective, social, cognitive, perceptual, and others) and linguistic dimensions (parts of speech, grammar, and others) [23]. Previous studies have used LIWC 2015 for similar purposes [24][25][26][27]. For our analysis, we used the four summary variables available on LIWC 2015, which were developed and validated using previously published datasets comprising large comparison samples [23,[28][29][30][31]: (1) analytical thinking, (2) clout, (3) authenticity, and (4) emotional tone.…”

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient Preferences and Decision Making for Symptomatic Urolithiasis

“…We utilized LIWC2015, a previously validated 11 , 18 application that analyzes textual data based on quantitative metrics related to psycholinguistic parameters. 19 For sentiment analysis, we used four summary variables (analytical thinking, clout, authenticity, and emotion) and three emotional tone-based variables (anxiety, anger, and sadness) to evaluate decision making.…”

Effect of Notes' Access and Complexity on OpenNotes' Utility

“…Ideally, satisfaction scores need to be 4 and above (i.e., satisfied or extremely satisfied). While multiple studies report that patients were highly satisfied to receive access to their notes, 4,8,10,31,[38][39][40][41] these conclusions were generally based on a broad subjective question, rather than a formal tool designed to assess satisfaction. Our findings suggest that participants are not satisfied with the content of the notes (information, time to read, language used, and design).…”