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.

Hospitals Still Fail to Provide Accurate Records of the Patients They Treat

Between a Fifth and a Third of Hospitals Record Inaccurate Cost Data

Targeted education for clinicians and clinical coding staff improves the accuracy of clinical coding: A quality improvement project

Hospitals are "gaming" data on common operations, leading surgeon says.

A Study of Clinical Coding Accuracy in Surgery: Implications for the Use of Administrative Big Data for Outcomes Management

How the Message from Mortality Figures Was Missed at Mid Staffs

Association of Diagnosis Coding With Differences in Risk-Adjusted Short-term Mortality Between Critical Access and Non-Critical Access Hospitals

Hospitals Pay Penalties of 1.2bn for "too Many" Admissions and "too Early" Discharges

Health records as the basis of clinical coding: Is the quality adequate? A qualitative study of medical coders’ perceptions

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

Analysis on the Coding Quality of Diseases Diagnosis and Operation Technique in Hemodialysis Patients with End-stage Chronic Kidney Disease in a Hospital

Understanding the biases to sepsis surveillance and quality assurance caused by inaccurate coding in administrative health data

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

Research on the Current Situation of Front Pages Coding Quality in Discharged Medical Records of 13 Hospitals in Guangxi Province and Relevant Influencing Factors

Identification of heart failure hospitalization from NHS Digital data: comparison with expert adjudication

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

Are there patients missing from community heart failure registers? An audit of clinical practice

Financial Impact of Inaccurate Coding Plus Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Surgically Managed Patients With Periprosthetic Fractures

An audit of the nature and impact of clinical coding subjectivity variability and error in otolaryngology

CQC survey: Patient satisfaction in England's hospital care fails to improve, but trust in doctors remains high

The Effect of Writing Quality of Medical Records on Disease Coding