[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.207.108.191. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Views 6,971
    Citations 0
    Original Investigation
    Health Informatics
    June 9, 2020

    Frequency and Types of Patient-Reported Errors in Electronic Health Record Ambulatory Care Notes

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 2Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
    • 3Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
    • 4Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
    • 5Department of Nursing, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Boston
    • 6Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle
    • 7Steele Institute for Health Innovation, Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania
    JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e205867. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.5867
    Key Points español 中文 (chinese)

    Question  How often do patients who read open ambulatory visit notes perceive mistakes, and what types of mistakes do they report?

    Findings  In this survey study of 136 815 patients, 29 656 provided a response, and 1 in 5 patients who read a note reported finding a mistake and 40% perceived the mistake as serious. Among patient-reported very serious errors, the most common characterizations were mistakes in diagnoses, medical history, medications, physical examination, test results, notes on the wrong patient, and sidedness.

    Meaning  As health information transparency increases, patients may perceive important errors in their visit notes, and inviting them to report mistakes that they believe are very serious may be associated with improved record accuracy and patient engagement in safety.

    Abstract

    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 (somewhat serious: 1563 [32.4%]; very serious: 480 [9.9%]). In multivariable analysis, female patients (relative risk [RR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.72-1.85), more educated patients (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.29-1.48), sicker patients (RR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.84-1.94), those aged 45 to 64 years (RR, 2.23; 95% CI, 2.06-2.42), those 65 years or older (RR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.73-2.32), and those who read more than 1 note (2-3 notes: RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.34-2.47; ≥4 notes: RR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.02-4.73) were more likely to report a mistake that they found to be serious compared with their reference groups. After categorization of patient-reported very serious mistakes, those specifically mentioning the word diagnosis or describing a specific error in current or past diagnoses were most common (98 of 356 [27.5%]), followed by inaccurate medical history (85 of 356 [23.9%]), medications or allergies (50 of 356 [14.0%]), and tests, procedures, or results (30 of 356 [8.4%]). A total of 23 (6.5%) reflected notes reportedly written on the wrong patient. Of 433 very serious errors, 255 (58.9%) included at least 1 perceived error potentially associated with the diagnostic process (eg, history, physical examination, tests, referrals, and communication).

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this study, patients who read ambulatory notes online perceived mistakes, a substantial proportion of which they found to be serious. Older and sicker patients were twice as likely to report a serious error compared with younger and healthier patients, indicating important safety and quality implications. Sharing notes with patients may help engage them to improve record accuracy and health care safety together with practitioners.

    ×