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.

Using Patient Experience Surveys to Identify Potential Diagnostic Safety Breakdowns: A Mixed Methods Study

"What Else Could It Be?" A Scoping Review of Questions for Patients to Ask Throughout the Diagnostic Process

Methods for and Challenges in Seeking Diagnostic Excellence

Patients' Experiences of Dental Diagnostic Failures: A Qualitative Study Using Social Media

Charting Diagnostic Safety: Exploring Patient-Provider Discordance in Medical Record Documentation

Characteristics of Disease-Specific and Generic Diagnostic Pitfalls: A Qualitative Study

Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes

Understanding diagnostic processes in emergency departments: a mixed methods case study protocol

Diagnostic Discrepancies in the Emergency Department: A Retrospective Study

Evaluation of a Natural Language Processing Approach to Identify Diagnostic Errors and Analysis of Safety Learning System Case Review Data: Retrospective Cohort Study

Hospital commitments to address diagnostic errors: An assessment of 95 US hospitals

Development and Psychometric Analysis of a Patient-Reported Measure of Diagnostic Excellence for Emergency and Urgent Care Settings

Toward the eradication of medical diagnostic errors

Reflections on Diagnosis and Diagnostic Errors: a Survey of Internal Medicine Resident and Attending Physicians

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

Understanding Diagnostic Error Patterns and Contributing Factors: A Descriptive Analysis of Medical Error Reports at a Tertiary Hospital in Kenya 2019-2021

Monitoring Diagnostic Safety Risks in Emergency Departments: Protocol for a Machine Learning Study

Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Adults Who Died or Were Transferred to Intensive Care

Diagnostic error in mental health: a review

The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care

Recommendations for using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument to help measure and improve diagnostic safety