Impact of Patient Online Record Access on Documentation: Scoping Review (Preprint)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Online record access (ORA) is being increasingly implemented internationally. Despite reported benefits for patients, health care professionals (HCPs) have raised concerns about potential disadvantages. To date, no review has examined the empirical evidence on whether and how documentation changes following the introduction of patients’ ORA. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to examine potential subjective and objective changes in HCPs’ documentation after using patients’ ORA. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using a methodological framework for scoping reviews and data from 4 electronic databases. Studies examining objective and subjective changes in clinical documentation following the implementation of ORA, specifically those related to actual use experiences (rather than previous expectations), up to July 2023, were included. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included studies. The narrative synthesis and reporting of findings were guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: Of the 3143 papers screened, 42 (1.34%) were included in this review. The included studies mainly used qualitative methods and were predominantly published after 2016 in the United States. The included studies were conducted in different settings (inpatient and outpatient) and clinical areas (somatic, mental health, and other). In total, 8 studies analyzed clinical notes, while the remaining studies focused on the experiences of patients, HCPs, and other stakeholders with ORA. Objectively, a decrease in complexity, an increase in readability, and a change in the emotional tone of the clinical notes were observed. The length of the clinical notes was observed to change both objectively and subjectively, although the direction of this change was inconclusive. However, many HCPs also reported writing notes that were less open and more restrictive to protect sensitive or hypothetical information. While for some HCPs the implementation of ORA made the clinical notes a less efficient and valuable working tool, others perceived that ORA opened up new therapeutic opportunities through direct contact with patients. CONCLUSIONS: The question of whether an inherently uniform clinical note can meet the diverse needs of different health care stakeholders remains unresolved, highlighting the challenges of standardizing practices in this complex sector. While ORA may encourage HCPs to make their clinical notes more patient friendly, it may also compromise the integrity of documentation by omitting sensitive findings and expert judgment, which can put patients at risk and lead to errors that increase the risk of malpractice. Given the limitations of digital documentation in fostering trust, it is imperative to prioritize meaningful patient-HCP interactions. The use of compensatory measures, such as parallel documentation and restricted access to clinical notes, indicates systemic problems and suggests that current practices are suboptimal. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT: RR2-10.2196/46722