Impacts of a Web-Based Course on Mental Health Clinicians’ Attitudes and Communication Behaviors Related to Use of OpenNotes
Abstract
Objective:
The OpenNotes initiative encourages health care systems to provide patients online access to clinical notes. Some individuals have expressed concerns about use of OpenNotes in mental health care. This study evaluated changes in mental health clinicians’ attitudes and communications with patients after participation in a Web-based course designed to reduce potential for unintended consequences and enhance likelihood of positive outcomes of OpenNotes.
Methods:
All 251 mental health clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, psychologists, and social workers) of a large U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facility were invited to participate. Clinicians completed surveys at baseline and 3 months after course participation. Ten items were examined that addressed clinicians’ concerns and communication behaviors with patients. Mixed-effects models with repeated measures were used to compare pre-post data.
Results:
Of the 251 clinicians, 141 (56%) completed baseline surveys, and 113 (80%) completed baseline and postcourse surveys. Of the 141 clinicians, 63% were female, 46% were social workers, 34% were psychologists, 16% were psychiatrists, and 4% were nurse practitioners. In final adjusted models, pre-post item scores indicated significant increases in clinicians’ ability to communicate with and educate patients (p<.01) and in the frequency with which clinicians educated patients about OpenNotes access (p<.001), advised patients to access and read notes (p<.01), and asked patients about questions or concerns they have with notes (p=.04). There was also a significant reduction in clinicians’ worry about negative consequences (p=.05).
Conclusions:
A Web-based course for mental health clinicians on use of OpenNotes resulted in self-reported improvements in some concerns and in aspects of patient-clinician communication.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
The study evaluated the impacts of a Web-based course about OpenNotes on mental health clinicians’ attitudes and communications with patients.
•
Pre- and postcourse scores indicated increases in clinicians’ self-reported ability to communicate with and educate patients about OpenNotes and in the frequency with which they educated patients about OpenNotes and asked patients whether they had questions about clinical notes.
•
Findings suggest that wider dissemination of training on OpenNotes to mental health clinicians may help clinicians communicate with their patients about notes and care.
The OpenNotes initiative is a growing international effort that encourages health care systems and clinics to provide patients online access to clinical progress notes to help them become more involved in their care (https://www.opennotes.org). Clinical notes are progress notes written in the medical record by clinicians and other staff that document their interactions with patients. In the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), patients who are users of VHA’s online patient portal, My HealtheVet, may access their clinical notes. Organizations are increasingly providing patients access to clinical notes online. However, unlike many other organizations, the VHA does not give clinicians the option of deciding which notes are available to patients. VHA rolled out OpenNotes nationally in January 2013, and nearly half of the almost 2 million active My HealtheVet users have used the portal to read or download their clinical notes via the Blue Button since they became available (1).
Prior research suggests that the transparency of clinical notes can benefit patients by increasing health-related knowledge, strengthening the patient-clinician relationship, and empowering patients—that is, making them feel in greater control of their care and recovery (2, 3). Although most patients and clinicians view OpenNotes positively, some clinicians and others have raised concerns about potential unintended negative consequences of patients’ online access to clinical notes regarding mental health treatment, which often contain sensitive information. Feared negative consequences include damages to the therapeutic relationship, unnecessary confusion or worry among patients, complications to overall patient-provider communication, and impacts to workflow by requiring additional time to more carefully write notes or to address patients’ concerns (4, 5). In a prior survey of 263 VHA mental health clinicians, 85% of respondents agreed with the statement, “making medical record notes available online is a good idea,” but nearly half reported that they would feel somewhat or very pleased if use of OpenNotes for mental health treatment was discontinued (6). Additional qualitative work suggested that OpenNotes has the potential to improve the therapeutic process when patients perceive the notes to be transparent and respectful. If, however, patients believe the notes fall short in these areas, the notes may have a harmful effect on the therapeutic process (7). In interviews, mental health clinicians indicated wanting more guidance on how to write notes and provide care in the context of OpenNotes (4).
We developed a Web-based course for VHA mental health clinicians designed to reduce the potential for unintended consequences and enhance the likelihood of positive outcomes of using OpenNotes in this setting. Specifically, the course aimed to improve clinicians’ understanding of OpenNotes, provide guidance on note-writing strategies, and enhance patient-clinician communication about notes. Here we report on the extent to which the course had an impact on self-reported clinician attitudes and patient-clinician communication behaviors related to use of OpenNotes in VHA mental health care.
Methods
This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the VHA facility where the study was conducted. Prior to study activities, we received a waiver of documentation of written informed consent for all participating clinicians. Data were collected between August 2016 and July 2017.
Setting
VHA launched its online patient portal, My HealtheVet, in 2003. VHA patients can use My HealtheVet to conduct a variety of tasks, such as refilling prescriptions, sending secure messages to providers, and reviewing upcoming appointments. All clinical notes written since January 1, 2013, can be accessed to view or download by using the Blue Button link 3 days after notes are completed. This study was conducted at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland Health Care System, in Portland, Oregon—a large VA facility in the Pacific Northwest. This facility serves approximately 95,000 veterans at 11 urban and rural sites throughout the region. Demographic characteristics of veterans at the facility are similar to those of the veteran population nationally: average age, 63; and proportion treated who are male, 92%. The proportion of veterans who are white is higher than the national average: 87% versus 83%; this difference reflects the general population of the region (8). Approximately 250 mental health clinicians (physicians, psychologists, social workers, and nurse practitioners) provide mental health services to approximately 16,000 veterans each year. In late 2012 and 2013, clinicians and other staff at the facility were made aware of OpenNotes through all-employee e-mails. These e-mails described OpenNotes and the Blue Button feature, provided tips on clinical documentation, and reported summary statistics on previous research on OpenNotes.
Web-Based Course Development
In consultation with stakeholder (veteran and clinician) consultants, an instructional designer, and a contracted team experienced in learning management software and course development, the study team created an interactive Web-based course on OpenNotes for mental health clinicians called “VA OpenNotes for Mental Health Clinicians” (Box 1; a detailed course outline is available from authors upon request). The course was designed to take approximately 30 minutes to complete, be viewable on stationary and mobile devices, and to familiarize clinicians with OpenNotes and provide recommendations for practicing in the context of OpenNotes. Course content includes basic information about using OpenNotes and information about writing notes to prevent unintended negative consequences, having conversations with patients about notes, and using OpenNotes to enhance care. Course content was derived in part from interviews with 28 mental health clinicians and 28 patients receiving VA mental health care about their experiences, concerns, potential benefits, and advice regarding OpenNotes (9). To address some of the concerns expressed by clinicians during these interviews, we also drew on previous research and writings relevant to patient-clinician communication (10, 11).
BOX 1. Primary topics and learning objectives of a Web-based course on OpenNotes
Basic Information About OpenNotes
How and why veterans access their notes
What veterans think about OpenNotes
Impacts of OpenNotes on Clinical Work
Addressing common clinician concerns
Preparing for common questions veterans have about notes
Writing Notes That Maintain Therapeutic Relationships With Patients
Best practices when writing for a potential patient audience
Incorporating patient strengths and a focus on recovery
Navigating Complex Clinical Scenarios
Strategies for writing notes when challenges arise
Communicating with patients about difficult topics
Using OpenNotes to Enhance Care
Orienting patients to their notes
Writing notes that engage patients
Procedures
All 251 mental health clinicians at the medical center were eligible to participate; continuing medical education was available for course participation. The Web-based course was delivered in two waves, and study participation involved completion of a survey at three time points that spanned the two waves (Figure 1). Delivering the course in two waves allowed us to look for secular trends over the course of the study. We sent a preparatory e-mail to all mental health clinicians introducing the study, followed by an e-mail two days later with an individualized link to the first survey. Clinicians who participated in the first survey (N=141, 56%) were randomly assigned to receive the Web-based course in either wave 1 or wave 2.
Longitudinal Survey
Many survey items were adapted with permission from Delbanco and colleagues’ (2) prior study of OpenNotes conducted at three non-VA health care settings. The study reported here utilized data from 10 items that specifically addressed clinicians’ attitudes and patient-clinician communication behaviors related to OpenNotes. We also administered the Clinician Support–Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) (12), a well-validated and often-used measure of participants’ level of support for patients’ management of their health and health care, and the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship–Clinician scale (STAR-C) (13), a validated measure that assesses clinicians’ perceptions of their therapeutic alliance with their patients. The CS-PAM and the STAR-C were administered at survey 1 for use as covariates in the final models.
Analysis
To optimize applicability to real-world implementation of training on OpenNotes, we used an “intent-to train” approach, meaning that we decided, a priori, to use data from all 141 clinicians who completed survey 1 in our analyses, regardless of their level of participation in the course. We first compared survey 1 responses of the clinicians in each of the training waves by using t tests with unequal variances. To explore for secular trends, we ran paired t tests to compare survey 2 to survey 3 responses for clinicians participating in training wave 1 and survey 1 to survey 2 responses for clinicians participating in training wave 2.
To compare pretraining to posttraining data, survey 1 served as the baseline survey for participants assigned to wave 1, and survey 2 (administered 4 months later) served as their follow-up survey. Similarly, survey 2 served as the baseline survey for participants assigned to wave 2, and survey 3 (administered 4 months later) served as their follow-up survey. In other words, pre-post comparisons used participant data from only one baseline and one follow-up survey. We calculated mean pre- and posttraining scores, and to assess changes in outcome measures we ran paired t tests comparing the mean differences in item responses on communication behavior and attitudes between baseline and follow-up time points. Next, to account for our longitudinal research design, we conducted analyses using mixed-effects linear regression models with repeated measures for each participant. All mixed models were adjusted for gender, discipline (prescribing clinician [psychiatrist or nurse practitioner] versus nonprescribing clinician [psychologist or social worker]), and STAR-C score. The number of weekly hours of patient care, CS-PAM scores, years since clinical training, and training wave were nonsignificant covariates and were thus excluded from further analyses. We imputed the missing follow-up survey data for one of the wave 1 clinicians by using that clinician’s survey 3 data, and we imputed missing baseline data for nine of the wave 2 clinicians by using their survey 1 data. All statistical analyses were conducted with R, version 3.4.4 (14), and mixed-effects models were run by using the lme function from the nlme package, version 3.1–131.1 (15).
Results
Of the 141 clinician participants who completed baseline surveys, 63% were female, 50% had been in practice for more than 10 years, and 54% provided more than 20 hours of patient care each week (Table 1). Forty-six percent were social workers, 34% were psychologists, 16% were psychiatrists, and 4% were nurse practitioners. There were no significant differences in gender or discipline between clinicians who participated in this study (N=141) and those who did not (N=107). Across both waves, 113 (80%) of those who completed the baseline survey also completed a follow-up survey; this group constituted the main analytic sample for the analyses described below. We detected no significant differences between the two training waves in their survey 1 responses and no secular trends. These analyses suggested that there were no initial differences between waves, and that pre-post changes were not attributable to increased familiarity with OpenNotes that might naturally occur without training.
| Variable | N | % |
|---|---|---|
| Training wave | ||
| 1 | 64 | 45 |
| 2 | 77 | 55 |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 86 | 63 |
| Male | 51 | 37 |
| Profession | ||
| Psychiatrist | 23 | 16 |
| Psychologist | 48 | 34 |
| Social worker | 64 | 46 |
| Nurse practitioner | 6 | 4 |
| Discipline | ||
| Psychiatrist or nurse practitioner | 29 | 21 |
| Psychologist or social worker | 112 | 79 |
| Clinical training completed | ||
| ≤10 years ago | 69 | 50 |
| >10 years ago | 69 | 50 |
| Hours of patient care per week | ||
| ≤20 | 62 | 46 |
| >20 | 74 | 54 |
| CS-PAM score (M±SD)b | 73.0±14.2 | |
| STAR-C score (M±SD)c | 38.3±3.1 |
a
Complete data were available for all variables except gender (N=137), clinical training completed (N=138), hours of patient care per week (N=136), and the Clinician Support for Patient Activation Measure (CS-PAM) and the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship–Clinician scale (STAR-C) (N=124).
b
Possible scores range from 22 to 100, with higher scores indicating stronger support for patient activation.
c
Possible scores range from 14 to 48, with higher scores indicating a stronger therapeutic relationship.
Table 2 shows participants’ mean changes in outcome scores between baseline and follow-up and results of final adjusted mixed models. In final models, which used data from the 113 clinicians with complete data, we found that after course participation, there was a significant increase in clinicians’ perceptions of their ability to communicate with and educate their patients (–.22, p<.01; item was reverse-scored). Reductions in worry about negative consequences were also significant (–.17, p=.05). No significant pre-post score changes for the three remaining attitude items were noted.
| Baseline | Follow-up | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item | M | SD | M | SD | Mean differenceb | 95% CI | p |
| Attitudesc | |||||||
| I will worry about negative consequences. | 2.46 | 1.25 | 2.30 | 1.10 | –.17 | –.33, .00 | .05 |
| My patients who read their notes online will trust me more.d | 3.74 | .91 | 3.60 | .99 | –.12 | –.28, .03 | .12 |
| My patients’ ability to read their notes online will negatively impact our treatment relationship. | 2.17 | 1.06 | 2.13 | 1.01 | –.03 | –.17, .11 | .64 |
| My patients will be less inclined to continue therapy/treatment. | 1.95 | .94 | 1.88 | 1.00 | –.12 | –.28, .04 | .16 |
| My ability to communicate with and educate my patients will be improved.d | 3.64 | .98 | 3.44 | 1.03 | –.22 | –.36, –.08 | <.01 |
| Communication behaviorse | |||||||
| How often do you educate your patients about accessing their medical record by using VA Blue Button? | 2.19 | 1.16 | 2.42 | 1.06 | .27 | .12, .43 | <.001 |
| How often do you advise your patients to access and read their mental health notes? | 2.02 | 1.06 | 2.25 | 1.10 | .23 | .06, .40 | <.01 |
| How often do you discuss in advance with your patients what is contained in the notes you write? | 2.91 | .91 | 2.80 | .99 | –.08 | –.24, .09 | .35 |
| How often do you ask your patients if they have questions or concerns about their notes? | 2.12 | 1.01 | 2.22 | 1.01 | .16 | .01, .32 | .04 |
| How often do you write notes that include reminders or resources that you hope your patients will read? | 2.22 | 1.12 | 2.33 | 1.06 | .18 | –.03, .39 | .10 |
a
All items were adapted from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation study of OpenNotes (2). Possible item scores range from 1 to 5, with higher scores being better for all measures.
b
Covariates in the fully adjusted model were gender, discipline, and score on the Scale to Assess the Therapeutic Relationship–Clinician scale.
c
Participants were asked “to respond to the following statements based on how likely you think it is that mental health OpenNotes will affect you or your practice.”
d
Reverse scored.
e
Participants were asked to “respond to the following questions based on your current practices with regard to OpenNotes.”
Three of five communication behavior items showed improvements. After taking the course, clinicians reported more frequently educating their patients about OpenNotes access (.27, p<.001), advising patients to access and read their notes (.23, p<.01), and asking patients about questions or concerns they have with their notes (.16, p=.04).
We conducted a post hoc multivariable sensitivity analysis that included only the clinicians who accessed the course, according to Web log data (N=97 of 113, 86%). Overall results did not change; however, the change in score from baseline to follow-up on the item about asking patients if they have questions or concerns about their notes was no longer significant. In an additional post hoc analysis, we found no significant differences in demographic characteristics or item responses between the clinicians who completed only the baseline survey (N=141) and those who completed both the baseline and follow-up surveys (N=113).
Discussion
To our knowledge, this is the first published study to evaluate a training program for mental health clinicians on OpenNotes. Clinicians in our sample reported improvement in perceptions of their ability to communicate with and educate patients: they more frequently educated their patients about OpenNotes, advised patients to access and read their notes, and asked patients about questions or concerns that they may have about their notes. Although a limitation of this study was that it did not employ a randomized two-arm design, analyses across the two training waves suggested that the observed pre-post changes were not significantly attributable to an increased familiarity with OpenNotes that might occur without training over time.
In a prior cross-sectional survey study, many clinicians felt that patients would worry more after reading notes about their mental health (6). A follow-up qualitative study showed that although some clinicians viewed OpenNotes as an opportunity to better partner with patients, others felt that it had the potential to undo the therapeutic relationship (4). The latter study also found that mental health clinicians often desired more education and support to help them work effectively within the context of OpenNotes. An additional qualitative study of veterans demonstrated that although patients often wanted to discuss their clinical progress notes with clinicians, patients were often reluctant to bring up the topic (7). These prior findings suggest that additional education and support specifically focused on helping patients and clinicians communicate about notes are needed. Communicating about notes was thus incorporated as a key component of the learning objectives. In a separate article, we reported the specific advice patients and clinicians had for clinicians practicing in the context of OpenNotes; this advice informed the learning objectives for the Web-based course (9).
In the study reported here, we found that the Web-based course resulted in positive impacts on self-reported communication behaviors and on reducing worries about negative consequences. However, no significant impact was noted on clinicians’ mean ratings of concerns about maintaining the treatment relationship in the context of OpenNotes. It may be that clinicians need to test new communication approaches in actual practice over time before determining to what extent treatment relationships may be positively or negatively affected.
VHA’s practice is unusual in that patients are granted access to all of their mental health notes by default. However, multiple institutions have begun to promote shared online health record access for patients receiving mental health care (personal communication, Wachenheim D and O’Neill S, 2018). This movement is supported by our and others’ prior research with patients receiving mental health care, which has shown that reading progress notes often helps patients feel more in control of their health care, better able to understand their mental health and general medical conditions, and better able to remember their plan of care and to have more trust in clinicians. In contrast, relatively few patients have reported frequently feeling distress or worry after reading their notes (16, 17).
Several important limitations should be considered with regard to the study. As noted above, we did not randomly assign clinicians to a training group versus a control group with no training; however, our use of two waves (to which clinicians were randomly assigned) and collection of longitudinal data across those two waves allowed us to evaluate for secular changes. Forty-five percent of eligible clinicians contributed complete data for the multivariable analysis; this rate of participation may affect generalizability of the results to other clinician populations. Of note, we detected no differences in gender or discipline between clinicians who participated in this study and those who did not. All measures were self-report and thus may not reflect actual clinician practice. We did not measure long-term outcomes. We did not adjust for multiple comparisons. However, comparisons were planned. That is, we designed this analysis and selected the outcomes regarding attitudes and behaviors for comparison prior to conducting the analyses; in this case, adjustments for multiple comparisons may not be as useful (18). Finally, this study examined a sample of clinicians from one VHA facility, and generalizability may be limited in terms of other VHA facilities or other clinician populations.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that wider dissemination of this or similar courses to mental health clinicians may help them communicate with their patients about OpenNotes and may reduce apprehensions about OpenNotes. Our prior research has shown that both clinicians and veterans need more support in order to use OpenNotes productively (4, 6, 7, 9). Furthermore, if we want patients who receive mental health care to be able to take advantage of the potential benefits that the OpenNotes initiative may offer, training approaches such as the one tested here should be implemented.
Footnote
The funders did not provide input on the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; writing the article; or the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the VA or United States government.
References
1.
Huang G, Kim S, Gasper J, et al: 2016 Survey of Veteran Enrollees' Health and Use of Health Care. Washington, DC, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Policy and Planning, 2017
2.
Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, et al: Inviting patients to read their doctors’ notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157:461–470
3.
Woods SS, Schwartz E, Tuepker A, et al: Patient experiences with full electronic access to health records and clinical notes through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: qualitative study. J Med Internet Res 2013; 15:e65
4.
Denneson LM, Cromer R, Williams HB, et al: A qualitative analysis of how online access to mental health notes is changing clinician perceptions of power and the therapeutic relationship. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19:e208
5.
Delbanco T, Walker J, Darer JD, et al: Open Notes: doctors and patients signing on. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153:121–125
6.
Dobscha SK, Denneson LM, Jacobson LE, et al: VA mental health clinician experiences and attitudes toward OpenNotes. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2016; 38:89–93
7.
Cromer R, Denneson LM, Pisciotta M, et al: Trust in mental health clinicians among patients who access clinical notes online. Psychiatr Serv 2017; 68:520–523
8.
VetPop: 2014. Washington, DC, National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics, https://www.va.gov/vetdata/veteran_population.asp. Accessed Sept 26, 2017
9.
Pisciotta M, Denneson LM, Williams HB, et al: Providing mental health care in the context of online mental health notes: advice from patients and mental health clinicians. J Ment Health (Epub ahead of print, Nov 23, 2018)
10.
Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, et al: SPIKES: a six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist 2000; 5:302–311
11.
Cleary M, Hunt GE, Horsfall J: Delivering difficult news in psychiatric settings. Harv Rev Psychiatry 2009; 17:315–321
12.
Hibbard JH, Collins PA, Mahoney E, et al: The development and testing of a measure assessing clinician beliefs about patient self-management. Health Expect 2010; 13:65–72
13.
McGuire-Snieckus R, McCabe R, Catty J, et al: A new scale to assess the therapeutic relationship in community mental health care: STAR. Psychol Med 2007; 37:85–95
14.
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, R Project for Statistical Computing, 2018
15.
Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, et al: Linear and Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models. R Package Version 3.1-137. Vienna, Austria, R Project for Statistical Computing, 2018
16.
Denneson LM, Chen JI, Pisciotta M, et al: Patients’ positive and negative responses to reading mental health clinical notes online. Psychiatr Serv 2018; 69:593–596
17.
Klein JW, Peacock S, Tsui JI, et al: Perceptions of primary care notes by patients with mental health diagnoses. Ann Fam Med 2018; 16:343–345
18.
Perneger TV: What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjustments. BMJ 1998; 316:1236–1238
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Cover: XXXX
History
Received: 5 September 2018
Revision received: 13 December 2018
Accepted: 25 January 2019
Published online: 20 March 2019
Published in print: June 01, 2019
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Funding Information
This article is based on work supported by the VA, the Veterans Health Administration, and VA Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) service project IIR 13-347. Dr. Dobscha is a core investigator at the VA HSR&D Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care at the VA Portland Health Care System.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).