Easy Access, Difficult Consequences? Providing Psychiatric Patients With Access to Their Health Records Electronically
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should psychiatric patients have access to their clinical notes (often referred to as OpenNotes)?For decades, mental health providers have debated this.Some have argued that open access to notes will undermine the therapeutic rapport, and possibly undermine care itself (1).Others have suggested that involving patients in their care decisions must include access to their records; in 2014, an editorial called on providers to "show patients their mental health records" (2).Following this publication, several psychiatrists opened up their clinical notes to patients electronically through patient portals and have been providing access ever since (3).Despite initial concerns from providers about what opening up their notes might to do therapy and care, these concerns have generally not been realized (4, 5).We believe that more effort needs to be made to support providers in feeling more comfortable opening up their notes.Although patient portals are increasingly found in other areas of medicine, they are not available to the same extent in psychiatry.Progress has been made both in terms of: 1) the number of organizations that have opened up their psychiatric notes (6); and, 2) our understanding of the impact of opening up notes to both patients and providers (7, 8).Yet, in our opinion, the uptake of "opening up" mental health clinical notes remains slow.In large part, we believe that this is due to the ongoing discomfort and concerns that providers have had (9).A recent study has shown that working in psychiatry is a predictor of discomfort in providing clinical notes to patients, with psychiatrists and those working in acute settings being particularly concerned (9).This does not come as a surprise as we are aware of the sensitive topics discussed during clinical encounters, and the stigma often associated with mental illness.In our experience talking to providers about this topic, we have received mixed feedback from those that have not yet opened up their notes.There are providers who see the merit in opening up clinical notes to support patient empowerment, and providers who are opposed to the idea (often adamantly) due to a number of clinical concerns.These concerns include possible documentation changes that influence the clinical utility of the notes (note "sanitization"); patients reading their notes in unsupported environments and becoming upset; providers answering more questions after hours; patients not understanding the content of their notes; clinical interactions taking more time as questions related to note content are discussed; concerns about providers being subjected to violence; and, the list goes on (5, 8-10).Since there have now been implementations of psychiatric patient portals with OpenNotes in numerous organizations, the question is now: what have the experiences been of providers?Generally speaking the literature has shown that the concerns of providers who are less
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.009 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".