Patients, clinicians and open notes
Information blocking as a case of epistemic injustice
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21515451 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Charlotte Blease (0000-0002-0205-1165, General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, corresponding author), Liz Salmi (0000-0003-3798-7438, General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA), Hanife Rexhepi (0000-0001-8957-9853, University of Skövde), Maria Hagglund (0000-0002-6839-3651, Uppsala University), Catherine M Desroches (0000-0001-5373-855X, General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 10 |
| Pages | 785-793 |
| Publication date | 2022-10-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Medical Ethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0306-6800 • E-ISSN: 1473-4257 |
| Publisher | BMJ (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1136/medethics-2021-107275 |
| PMID | 33990427 |
| OpenAlex | W3162190284 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 7 |
| References cited | 63 |
In many countries, including patients are legally entitled to request copies of their clinical notes. However, this process remains time-consuming and burdensome, and it remains unclear how much of the medical record must be made available. Online access to notes offers a way to overcome these challenges and in around 10 countries worldwide, via secure web-based portals, many patients are now able to read at least some of the narrative reports written by clinicians (‘open notes’). However, even in countries that have implemented the practice many clinicians have resisted the idea remaining doubtful of the value of opening notes, and anticipating patients will be confused or anxious by what they read. Against this scepticism, a growing body of qualitative and quantitative research reveals that patients derive multiple benefits from reading their notes. We address the contrasting perceptions of this practice innovation, and claim that the divergent views of patients and clinicians can be explained as a case of epistemic injustice. Using a range of evidence, we argue that patients are vulnerable to (oftentimes, non-intentional) epistemic injustice. Nonetheless, we conclude that the marginalisation of patients’ access to their health information exemplifies a form of epistemic exclusion, one with practical and ethical consequences including for patient safety
Epistemology · Injustice · Narrative · Political science · Skepticism · Sociology · Computer Science · Ethics in Clinical Research · Law · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Philosophy · Psychology · Social Psychology
Epistemic injustice in healthcare encounters
Some Varieties of Epistemic Injustice
Epistemic injustice in psychiatry
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals
Epistemic injustice in healthcare
Epistemic Injustice and Illness
Sharing Clinical Notes in Psychotherapy
Easy Access, Difficult Consequences? Providing Psychiatric Patients With Access to Their Health Records Electronically
Do graded activity therapies cause harm in chronic fatigue syndrome
| Unique citing works | 7 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1.4 |
| Citation span | 2021 - 2026 (6) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 6 |