TY - JOUR T1 - The Benefits and Harms of Open Notes in Mental Health: A Delphi Survey of International Experts JF - medRxiv DO - 10.1101/2021.04.21.21255785 SP - 2021.04.21.21255785 AU - Charlotte Blease AU - Anna Kharko AU - Maria Hagglund AU - Stephen O’Neill AU - Deborah Wachenheim AU - Liz Salmi AU - Kendall Harcourt AU - Cosima Locher AU - Catherine M. DesRoches AU - John Torous Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/04/25/2021.04.21.21255785.abstract N2 - Importance As of April 5, 2021, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act, new federal rules in the U.S. mandate that providers offer patients access to their online clinical records.Objective To solicit the view of an international panel of experts on the effects on mental health patients, including possible benefits and harms, of accessing their clinical notes.Design An online 3-round Delphi poll.Setting In round 1 open-ended questions solicited feedback on the benefits and harms to patients of reading their mental health notes. Responses were coded to produce itemized statements. In Round 2 participants were asked to rate their agreement with each item along 7-point Likert scales. Responses were analyzed for consensus, set at a predetermined interquartile range of ≤ 1. In Round 3 items that did not reach consensus were redistributed.Participants International experts identified as clinicians, chief medical information officers, patient advocates, and informaticians with extensive experience and/or research knowledge about patient access to mental health notes.Main Outcomes, and Measures An expert-generated consensus on the benefits and risks of sharing mental health notes with patients.Results A total of 70 of 92 (76%) experts from 6 countries responded to Round 1. A qualitative review of responses yielded 88 distinct items. A total of 56 of 70 (80%) experts responded to Round 2, and 52 of 56 (93%) responded to Round 3. Consensus was reached on 65 of 88 (74%) of survey items.Conclusions and Relevance This iterative process of survey responses and ratings yielded consensus that there would be multiple benefits and few harms to patients from accessing their mental health notes. Questions remain about the impact of open notes on professional autonomy, and further empirical work into this practice innovation is warranted.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementCB was supported by a John B. Keane Fellowship. The study was also supported by FORTE - the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare through the research projects "PACESS" (2016-00623) and "Beyond Implementation of eHealth" (2020-01229). The grant providers had no input into the conduct of the study.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study received approval from the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Institutional Review Board in April 2020 (Protocol # 2020P000218) and the University of Plymouth, UK (Protocol # 19/20-1331).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData available upon request. ER -