summary visit to the doctor

Patient Visit Summary Template

Empower patients with our comprehensive Patient Visit Summary Template, featuring crucial details for effective healthcare management. Download now!

By Karina Jimenea on Apr 08, 2024.

Fact Checked by RJ Gumban.

What is a Patient Visit Summary?

Have you ever left a medical appointment feeling uncertain about what was discussed or what steps to take next? It's a common experience for many of us. That's where a patient visit summary comes in.

A concise patient visit summary is a brief document that summarizes your recent medical appointment. It includes essential clinical information such as diagnoses, treatments, and medications discussed during the visit. Think of it as a guide to help you navigate your healthcare journey after leaving the doctor's office.

You'll typically find details about your health history within a patient visit summary, including any relevant past medical issues or ongoing conditions. It may also outline any procedures or tests performed during your visit and the results.

One of the critical components of a patient visit summary is the after-visit summary, which outlines the next steps recommended by your healthcare provider. This could include future appointments, specialist referrals, or instructions for managing your condition at home.

Additionally, the document may contain important office contact information for reaching your healthcare providers in case of questions or concerns. This ensures that you have access to support even after you've left the clinic or hospital.

Patient visit summaries are typically generated from electronic health record systems of medical practices. They are provided to patients either in printed form or electronically, depending on patient consent and the medical practices of the healthcare provider.

By providing patients with a clear and comprehensive overview of their visit encounters, patient visit summaries empower individuals to take control of their health and follow through on clinical instructions. They are a valuable tool for improving communication between patients and their health professionals and promoting continuity of care across medical appointments.

Printable Patient Visit Summary Template

Download this Patient Visit Summary Template to gain insight into organising healthcare information, empowering tto manage health better and communicate with providers.

Why is it important for healthcare professionals to summarize patient visits?

Summarizing patient visits is crucial for healthcare professionals to ensure effective communication and continuity of care.

• Facilitates clear communication : Summaries distill complex medical information into concise, understandable formats, enhancing communication between healthcare providers and patients.
• Promotes continuity of care : By documenting key findings and treatment plans, summaries enable seamless transitions between different healthcare settings and providers, ensuring consistent and coordinated care.
• Enhances patient engagement : Giving patients summaries of their visits empowers them to participate actively in their care, promoting better health outcomes through improved understanding and adherence to treatment plans.

What can you usually find in a patient visit summary?

A patient visit summary encapsulates crucial information from your medical appointment. Within this document, you'll find essential details that empower you to understand and manage your health effectively.

Diagnoses and treatment

The patient visit summary typically includes details of any diagnoses made during the appointment and the corresponding treatment plan prescribed by the healthcare provider. This section clarifies the medical conditions identified and the steps recommended to address them.

Medications prescribed

It outlines any medications the healthcare provider prescribes during the visit, including the prescription's dosage, frequency, and duration. This information helps patients understand their medication regimen and ensures proper adherence to treatment.

Procedures conducted

This section lists any procedures or tests performed during the appointment and relevant findings or results. It gives patients insight into the diagnostic process and any necessary follow-up actions.

Lab tests and imaging studies ordered

The patient visit summary includes details of any laboratory tests or imaging studies ordered by the healthcare provider and instructions for obtaining the results. This helps patients stay informed about their healthcare needs and facilitates coordination with diagnostic facilities.

Follow-up instructions

It outlines specific instructions the healthcare provider provides, such as dietary recommendations, lifestyle modifications, or self-care practices. This section guides patients on steps after the appointment to support their ongoing health management.

Next appointment

The summary specifies the date and time of the patient's next appointment, if scheduled, ensuring continuity of care and timely follow-up with the healthcare provider. This helps patients plan their future healthcare appointments and ensures they stay on track with their treatment plans.

Additional Notes

This section allows for any additional information or comments from the healthcare provider to be documented, providing further context or clarification on the visit. It ensures comprehensive communication between the healthcare team and the patient, promoting patient engagement and understanding.

How does our Patient Visit Summary Template work?

This guide simplifies patients' processes to organize and manage their medical information effectively.

Step 1: Download the template

First, access the Patient Visit Summary Template as a downloadable PDF document. Click on the provided link to initiate the download process to your device, ensuring you have a copy readily available for use. You may also print it at your patient's request, providing them with a tangible copy for their records or personal reference.

Step 2: Enter patient information

Once downloaded, the next step involves filling in your details in the designated fields. These details include your full name, date of birth, gender, address, contact number, email address, insurance provider, and policy number. Accurate completion of this section ensures that your medical records are correctly identified and maintained.

Step 3: Provide visit details

After inputting your personal information, document the patient's recent visit to the clinic or hospital. This includes entering the date of the visit, stating the reason for the visit, specifying the primary care provider, indicating any specialty involved (if applicable), detailing the duration of the visit, and listing any procedures conducted during the appointment.

Additionally, record any medications prescribed, lab tests ordered, imaging studies requested, follow-up instructions given, and schedule your next appointment.

Step 4: Diagnosis and treatment

In this section, accurately document any diagnoses provided by your healthcare provider during the visit. Correspondingly, outline the treatment plan recommended or prescribed to address the diagnosed condition(s). Include details regarding any medications prescribed, lifestyle modifications advised, or further diagnostic tests ordered for ongoing management.

Step 5: Notes

Use this space to jot down any additional information or instructions provided by your healthcare provider during the visit. This could include recommendations, advice, reminders, or pertinent discussions regarding your health and well-being. Capturing these details ensures you have a comprehensive visit record for future reference.

Step 6: Save and organize

Upon completing the template, save the document on your device for easy access and retrieval. Organizing your medical records systematically is recommended by creating a dedicated folder for storing each visit summary. This approach ensures that your medical information is readily accessible when needed.

Step 7: Share with healthcare providers

During subsequent appointments or consultations with your medical practitioners, share the completed Patient Visit Summary Template to provide them with relevant details from your visit. Sharing your medical history, chief complaints, treatment plans, and follow-up instructions enables your healthcare team to provide informed and coordinated care tailored to your needs.

Patient Visit Summary Template example (sample)

Explore our Patient Visit Summary Template example featuring responses designed to give you a clear understanding of how to utilize it effectively. Gain insight into organizing your healthcare information, empowering you to manage your health better and communicate with your providers.

Download our free Patient Visit Summary Template example here:

Why use Carepatron as your clinical documentation software?

At Carepatron, we understand the importance of clinical documentation software in modern healthcare. That's why we've developed a comprehensive solution to streamline patient visit summaries and enhance healthcare delivery.

• Telehealth integration : Seamlessly incorporate telehealth capabilities into patient visit summaries, enabling convenient virtual consultations.
• Comprehensive clinical documentation : Benefit from a robust electronic health record (EHR) system that streamlines documentation, ensuring accuracy and compliance.
• Efficient scheduling : Easily manage appointments and streamline scheduling processes, maximizing patient and provider efficiency.
• Interactive patient portal : Engage patients with an intuitive patient portal where they can securely access records like visit summaries, schedule appointments, and upload documents.
• Convenient payments : Simplify payment processes with integrated payment solutions, providing patients with a hassle-free billing experience.

With our platform, you can enhance patient care, improve efficiency, and drive practice growth effortlessly. Experience the Carepatron advantage today!

Both patients and healthcare providers utilize patient visit summaries to keep track of visit details and facilitate communication.

Patient visit summaries ensure critical information from medical appointments is documented and easily accessible for future reference and care coordination.

Patient visit summaries should be used after every medical appointment to capture essential information, facilitate continuity of care, and empower patients to manage their health actively.

Commonly asked questions

Related templates.

Treatment Summary Template

Unlock effective mental health documentation with our Treatment Summary Template guide – streamline progress tracking and enhance client care.

Popular Templates

Join 10,000+ teams using carepatron to be more productive.

HLOL Podcast Transcripts

After Visit Summaries (HLOL #152)

Helen Osborne: Welcome to Health Literacy Out Loud . I’m Helen Osborne, President of Health Literacy Consulting, founder of Health Literacy Month and your host of Health Literacy Out Loud .

In these podcasts, you get to listen in on my conversations with some really remarkable people. Today, I’m talking with Dr. Alex Federman who is an aging-focused, health-services researcher at Icahn School of Medicine at Mt. Sinai.

His research addresses chronic illness self-management in older adults and focuses on health literacy, cognition and health-related beliefs.

Dr. Federman also provides primary care to adults in both clinic and home-based settings in New York City.

I wanted to do a podcast about electronic health records and Cindy Brach of AHRQ suggested I interview Alex Federman about his research on After-Visit Summaries or AVS. Thanks, Cindy. I’m happy to be doing just that.

Welcome to Health Literacy Out Loud , Alex.

Alex Federman: I’m very happy to be here.

Helen Osborne: Older adults and chronic illness, how does that fit together with electronic health records and AVS?

Alex Federman: Patients are coming into contact with the healthcare system in many different ways these days. Electronic formats are an increasingly important part of the interface, whether it’s a physician at a computer taking notes if he or she interviews a patient during an exam or if it’s a patient tapping into their health information via an electronic web portal.

Helen Osborne: It’s interesting. I was at the doctor yesterday and both of those things happened. Are electronic health records two way?

Alex Federman: Yes, increasingly so. The use of the electronic portal is gaining ground as a way for patients to access their health information and to exchange information with their clinicians.

My particular interest in all of this is a little bit of a side product with electronic health records, and that’s the after-visit summary.

Helen Osborne: Could you explain what those are? Also, Alex, we’ve got an international audience. We’re not all physicians. We might be clinicians, public health, librarians or people just interested in communicating health information more clearly wherever they are. What is an after-visit summary?

Alex Federman: The after-visit summary is also sometimes called the clinical summary. Basically, it’s a summary of information regarding the visit that just occurred, whether it’s a doctor visit or a visit to a nurse or nurse practitioner.

Typically, this is a document that is generated from the electronic health record and it pulls information from various elements of that visit.

It might have information about the patient’s vital signs, medications that they take, the problems that were discussed during the course of the visit and specific instructions that the physician wants to have the patient follow.

Helen Osborne: At least in my experience, when I leave my encounter with the doctor and before I walk out to the waiting room, somebody often just hands me a few pieces of paper stapled together. Is that what the after-visit summary is?

Alex Federman: It might be. There are a lot of different pieces of information that people sometimes get when they leave the visit. Increasingly, the after-visit summary is a component of that.

Your confusion about what exactly is in that packet of papers that you get when you leave the office is actually part of the problem and the reason why I’ve become interested in this area.

Sometimes, patients don’t know exactly what they’re getting and don’t know that that packet of paper contains important information about their visit and the follow-up steps that they need to take.

Helen Osborne: It’s interesting that you talk about the problems, because in theory, it sounds like, “Isn’t that wonderful? I’m going to look at the same thing you were looking at as my doctor. I’m looking at it as a patient.” The problem is that I as the patient have no clue what to make of this document. Is that one of those problems?

Alex Federman: Not for everyone, but for some patients that is the case. It has to do with the language that is sometimes used on these forms and the way it’s formatted. There are a number of problems that underlie the fact that we don’t have an ideal after-visit summary.

There may be some out there, but by and large, the many after-visit summaries that I’ve looked at and in my many conversations with physicians across the country, I have learned that after-visit summaries that are generated from their electronic health records haven’t quite been optimized for the needs of the patient.

Helen Osborne: Give us an example. You talked about formatting and language, but what would that be like? What would it look like? What would it read like when it’s not all that useful?

Alex Federman: Very often, what we see on the after-visit summary is a document that is densely packed with information. Much of it is of immediate relevance to the patient. Other information may not be so immediately useful.

By immediate, I’m talking about instructions that the patient should follow, say, for starting a new medication or steps that they ought to be taking as soon as they get home.

Helen Osborne: That would be on there.

Alex Federman: Yes. Less immediate information might be background information, such as the immunizations the patients have received.

That’s all important information, but sometimes when you fill a document with a lot of that background information, it can distract from the information that needs more immediate attention. That’s one source of problems.

Another problem is that the language is typically not always tailored for its particular audience. The electronic medical records pull information from the notes and the charting template that the clinician is using.

The clinician is using terms that are familiar to him or her or filling in diagnoses that are very precise because they’re used for billing purposes. That’s the information that ends up on the after-visit summary, but it may not be language or terms that are familiar to a patient. Very often, it’s not.

Helen Osborne: Wouldn’t an example be when the doctor and patient talk about high blood pressure, but the coding or whatever comes in that after-visit summary would be some version of hypertension and maybe even a longer word than that?

Alex Federman: Yes. An example might be Type II Diabetes with neuropathic pain. It could be a diagnosis that has eight to 10 words. Maybe 10 is an exaggeration, but eight is really within the realm of possibility. The patient doesn’t necessarily need to see all of that and it might be easier for them just to see that term Diabetes, Diabetes Mellitus or Type II Diabetes.

The basic idea here is that there is a lot of terminology that is really part of the clinician’s jargon that does not necessarily resonate with patients.

Helen Osborne: It’s not just for me, as the patient, to get something useful because I’ve got pages and pages of this. Was it created to meet both the needs of the providers as well as patients on the same piece of paper?

Alex Federman: I think to a certain extent, because patients do share these documents with other physicians. In the focus group work and individual interviews we’ve done with patients, we’ve had many patients say that they actually keep these documents on their person in case they end up in the Emergency Department somewhere. They use it as currency for exchanging information between physicians.

Helen Osborne: Is that a good idea?

Alex Federman: Yes, it’s a great idea.

I think that the main purpose of the document is to inform the patient. The problem is that the technology hasn’t quite caught up with that particular need. The majority of the companies that are generating these electronic health records that are generating after-visit summaries haven’t yet been able to introduce a technology that is needed to translate that physician-focused information to patient information.

Helen Osborne: It’s not just up to you. In your practice wherever you are or whatever clinic you’re working at, you can’t just decide, “We want to do it this way.” It’s a bigger issue than that.

Alex Federman: There is a little bit of flexibility, but not a tremendous amount of flexibility. There are real barriers to being able to create a document that is really easy for patients to use and to grasp the information that they need. The technology isn’t quite yet there.

Helen Osborne: It says to me, listening to you describe this and certainly in my own experience, that this idea came from a good place. It’s the best of intentions. All clinicians and patients communicate better together and are more open about their care. But it sounds like there are some hurdles. Thanks for describing those.

We’re not there yet. We’re not at the ideal. Is it an either/or situation where it either works or it doesn’t, or is there some middle place that we can make this a bit better? By “we,” I mean all of us who listen and care about health communication. Can we make this a little bit better?

Alex Federman: Absolutely. Despite the shortcomings, many patients tell us that they find a great deal of value in the document. They would like to see a number of changes, but they otherwise value it.

Helen Osborne: That’s what your research is about, right, because you’re talking about doing the focus groups?

Alex Federman: Yes, we are doing focus groups and based on our focus group findings, both with patients and the clinicians, we are working on some prototypes. We’ll be testing those prototypes on patients to see how it affects their experience with care.

Helen Osborne: I’m delighted you’re doing that research. No wonder Cindy recommended I talk to you.

What can we be doing right now? Have you learned tips and strategies that all of us can be doing to make this a bit better today?

Alex Federman: Yes. If you’re a clinician, for one, there’s typically an opportunity, before printing the after-visit summary, to include some custom language or free text. Clinicians will often take advantage of that and type in some extra instructions for patients.

Helen Osborne: That might be a time to use some lay language. We could go back to Diabetes or high blood pressure or some lay language like that?

Alex Federman: That’s exactly right. Whatever instructions that they are going to put there, they should be mindful of the strategies that you and I know pretty well to effectively communicate using printed materials. Keep it clear. It’s the typical low health literacy or limited health literacy approaches to communicating information.

Beyond that, because these documents are unwieldy, too long, too dense and, again, with the information being difficult to understand because of jargon and the other formatting elements that can also make it confusing, what the clinician can do is actually take the document with the patient and highlight the areas that they think are most important by circling them and using it as a reinforcement tool.

Many clinicians do this already, but there are many who don’t take advantage of it. In a way, it’s a little bit of a wasted opportunity, because reinforcing key aspects of the visit does have an impact on patients’ retention. It’s just another way to ensure that the patient understands what you want him or her to understand.

Helen Osborne: That really gets me, if someone would have just sat down and talked to you about it. I just got it on my way out the door and that was the end of the conversation. I can just see that conversation.

One of my favorite health literacy tools is a highlighter. Highlight what’s most important. Maybe it’s the person’s weight, change, medication or something. That’s a great idea.

What other tips can you give any of us, whether as patients, family members, clinicians or anyone?

Alex Federman: One thing that I’ve learned from talking to so many patients is that they find a great deal of value in the after-visit summary as a way of clarifying for themselves some of the information that they’re getting from their clinician.

One of the downsides to these documents is that often you get information that’s in the record but is no longer pertinent to the patient’s current state of health.

That might be because the clinician hasn’t, for example, eliminated some old problems that exist on the problem list, or maybe they haven’t removed some medications from the medication list that the patient is no longer taking. That’s just part and parcel of being a busy clinician.

One of the problems with the electronic health record is that this constant upkeep that’s required is extremely time consuming for the clinicians.

Helen Osborne: I print out those things and I keep those things. What I as a patient did was I actually made notes about which medications I’m not on anymore and brought it to my next visit.

Alex Federman: That’s one of the things that patients find valuable. They recognize, “Should I really be on this medicine? Do I still have this problem?” Many patients, I’ve found, actually bring this up with their physicians which stimulates that conversation. My sense is that it leads to clarification of the medications that the patient is taking, so that’s an opportunity for reinforcement.

I guess that was a longwinded way of saying that patients should take a look at this document and make sure that it looks like it’s up to date. If they have concerns about it, then do what you suggest. Circle it, highlight it and bring it back to their doctor to clarify.

Helen Osborne: That really brings full circle that issue of health literacy. My understanding of it and the way that I view it is it’s all about mutual understanding. Yes, the clinician can be taking the highlighter and updating the language, but we as patients can be doing the same. It’s when we come back together with that shared understanding that health literacy really happens.

Alex Federman: That’s right.

Helen Osborne: Thank you for doing all that research on it. Putting this all together, if there was a scale are these after-visit summaries and electronic health records in your view good, bad or somewhere in between?

Alex Federman: They’re great.

Helen Osborne: That’s good. Problems and all.

Alex Federman: They’re all great. There is always room for improvement. The electronic health record introduces a lot of challenges for clinicians. It’s more documentation than we used to have to do, but I think it also helps us improve the delivery of care.

The after-visit summary is just another tool for effectively communicating with the patient. It hasn’t been optimized quite yet, but in its current form, it still has plenty of value. I think there are a lot of good reasons to keep working on it to make it something that both the patients and the physicians really love and want to use.

Helen Osborne: Thank you for making it more clear what this is all about and also for championing this. When you just responded, “It’s great,” I could really hear that from you. It is a tool and we need to keep working on it. Thank you for doing the research and for helping us move forward for this. Most of all, thanks for being a guest on Health Literacy Out Loud .

Alex Federman: My pleasure.

Helen Osborne: As we just heard from Dr. Alex Federman, health literacy is all about patients and providers understanding one another. But doing so is not always easy.

For help clearly communicating your health message, please visit my Health Literacy Consulting website at www.HealthLiteracy.com . While you are there, sign up for the free monthly e-newsletter, What’s New in Health Literacy Consulting .

New Health Literacy Out Loud podcasts come out every few weeks. Subscribe for free to hear them all. You can find us on iTunes, Stitcher Radio and the Health Literacy Out Loud website at www.HealthLiteracyOutLoud.org .

Did you like this podcast? Even more, did you learn something new? I sure hope so. If you did, tell your colleagues and tell your friends. Together, let’s tell the whole world why health literacy matters.

Until next time, I’m Helen Osborne.

Listen to this podcast.

Print this page

Sign up for the “What’s New” Newsletter

"As an instructional designer in the Biotech industry, I find Health Literacy Out Loud podcasts extremely valuable! With such a conversational flow, I feel involved in the conversation of each episode. My favorites are about education, education technology, and instruction design as they connect to health literacy. The other episodes, however, do not disappoint. Each presents engaging and new material, diverse perspectives, and relatable stories to the life and work of health professionals.“

James Aird, M.Ed. Instructional Designer

Lindsey Ruppel, D.O.

Family medicine, primary care.

• Behavioral Health
• Children's Health (Pediatrics)
• Exercise and Fitness
• Heart Health
• Men's Health
• Neurosurgery
• Obstetrics and Gynecology
• Orthopedic Health
• Weight Loss and Bariatric Surgery
• Women's Health

Plan ahead to make the most of your health care visit

• Family Medicine
• Patient Portal

A visit with your health care provider can be overwhelming. There are a few things to consider before, during and after your visit so you make the most of the time you have with your health care provider.

Prepare a discussion checklist.

Your health care provider will ask you several questions. The amount of questions depends on the reason for your visit and whether this provider has seen you before. Your answers help your provider understand your health and your health concerns.

Be prepared to discuss:

• The main reason for your visit
• New concerns
• Past and present medical conditions
• Any past surgeries
• Prescription and nonprescription medications, vitamins and herbal remedies
• All allergies
• Immunization records
• Family medical history

Write down your main concerns.

Prepare a list of main concerns. Rank them in order of importance.

You may want to ask:

• How can I improve my health?
• Are there conditions or diseases I am at risk for?
• What are possible side effects of medications I am taking?
• Are there any available resources that will help me understand my medical conditions?

It also is important to tell your health care provider about anything in your personal life, such as an illness in the family, financial worries or job difficulties, that may affect your health.

Describe new symptoms or recent changes in symptoms.

Your health care provider may ask you detailed questions, such as:.

• How long have you had the problem?
• What does it feel like?
• How often do the symptoms occur?
• What brings on the symptoms?
• What reduces the symptoms?
• Is the problem getting worse?
• Have other family members had similar problems?

Having a family member or friend with you can be helpful. Having two people hear the discussion can help later when you want to remember what was talked about. In addition, you can read the provider's notes from your visit through the patient portal.

Expect to ask all of your questions and have them answered. Talk with your health care provider about resources that may help answer your questions. This may take more time than this visit allows. If you need more time for questions, you may need to schedule a follow-up visit or a phone call.

Recap what you heard after the visit.

It may be helpful to write down what you learned from your visit. Include information about how your health care provider is planning to help you and what actions you can take to improve your health. Request an after-visit summary that includes visit diagnoses, treatment plans, medication list and patient education, if one was not provided to you.

Contact your health care provider by phone or the patient portal if you have additional questions about your visit. Read more about how you can use the patient portal for your health care .

Lindsey Ruppel, D.O. , sees patients in Family Medicine in Barron and Rice Lake , Wisconsin.

Related Posts

Certification of Health IT

Health information technology advisory committee (hitac), health equity, hti-1 final rule, information blocking, interoperability, patient access to health records, clinical quality and safety, health it and health information exchange basics, health it in health care settings, health it resources, laws, regulation, and policy, onc funding opportunities, onc hitech programs, privacy, security, and hipaa, scientific initiatives, standards & technology, usability and provider burden, providing clinical summaries to patients after each office visit: a technical guide.

This document is a guide to help eligible professionals and their organizations gain a better grasp of how to successfully meet the criteria of giving clinical summaries to patients after each office visit. It discusses the two requirements to accomplishing these goals and assists organizations in meeting them.

• Assuring that the information for the AVS has been entered, updated, and validated in the EHR before the end of the visit.
• Developing process steps for assuring that each patient receives an AVS before the end of the visit.

The material in these guides and tools was developed from the experiences of Regional Extension Center staff in the performance of technical support and EHR implementation assistance to primary care providers. The information contained in this guide is not intended to serve as legal advice nor should it substitute for legal counsel. The guide is not exhaustive, and readers are encouraged to seek additional detailed technical guidance to supplement the information contained herein.

Reference in this web site to any specific resources, tools, products, process, service, manufacturer, or company does not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Government or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

4 votes with an average rating of 2

Open Survey

Patient Visit Summary Report

• See 24 Related Articles
• Share this article

The Patient Visit Summary is an “end-of-visit” clinical summary report. It details everything that happened during an appointment or other encounter. The report optionally includes an overview of other patient medical information. You can also customize what appears on the report and configure special components which will include patient instructions and other information.

This report is a feature required for HHS ONC certification, and by providing it you meet a Meaningful Use Measure.

• 1 Generate the Patient Visit Summary Report
• 2 Select Options For the Patient Visit Summary
• 3.1 Export the Report as a C-CDA File
• 4 Record that a Patient’s Family Declined the Patient Visit Summary
• 5.1 Configure Which Office Contact Information Should Appear
• 5.2 Configure Problem List Notes
• 5.3 Customize Other Report Content
• 5.4 Configure Chief Complaint and Clinical Instructions

Generate the Patient Visit Summary Report

While reviewing a chart note click the Print button at the top to open the report and automatically select that visit.

Alternatively, after you open a patient chart (or phone note, portal message, or other message protocol), select “Patient Visit Summary” from the Reports menu.

Select Options For the Patient Visit Summary

Before you generate the report, you can select the visit encounter (if other than today) and optionally change what information will appear on the report output.

Your practice’s default settings will appear, and you can add or remove items using the checkboxes in the Customize panel on the left-hand side of the window. For example, you can decide to add or remove Medications, Vitals, or other visit information based on whether or not that information is relevant to the visit.

As you make changes, the report preview will display a text-only view of the report’s contents. Report attachments, such as the patient care plans, will not appear in the preview.

Hidden Diagnoses in the Patient Chart: Any diagnoses that are hidden or “locked” will not display in the Patient Visit Summary. To get a report that contains these diagnoses, use the Summary of Care Record .

Display ICD-10 for Referral or Lab Requisitions: Some practices use the Patient Visit Summary to help communicate about an order. For example, you might use it as a lab requisition form. As you customize what appears on the report, you can indicate that it should include the Diagnoses, along with the ICD-10 codes, to help communicate to a third party or biller.

Save or Print the Report

After you select options for the report, click “Save as…” or “Print” to output the Patient Visit Summary.

If you select print, your computer’s standard print dialog window will open. If you select “Save as…” option, you will be prompted to save the PDF. You can later attach the PDF to portal message, an e-mail, or similar.

Export the Report as a C-CDA File

Your practice can also save a Patient Visit Summary in the C-CDA Clinical Summary xml file format for transmission to other medical practices.

When you generate a Patient Visit Summary, click “Save as…” to create a file. In the file type pull-down menu, you can choose either a PDF file or a C-CDA xml file.

Configuration, Include, Exclude: Your practice can set report defaults and make modifications to what appears in the Patient Visit Summary. The C-CDA will reflect your changes. Labs and orders that are marked to be private and not appear on patient reports will not be included in the C-CDA file.

Record that a Patient’s Family Declined the Patient Visit Summary

You can record when a patient or guardian declined to receive a Patient Visit Summary report for the day’s appointment.

Click on the Decline button to indicate the patient or guardian did not want the Patient Visit Summary.

Alternatively, you can click Decline inside the Patient Visit Summary window.

Why Would You Record That a Family Declined the Patient Visit Summary?: In order to meet Meaningful Use benchmarks or other mandate programs, your practice mght offer a Patient Visit Summary for each visit. Since the family may say, “no thanks”, you can click “Decline” to record their refusal and save the paper and ink for the report. PCC EHR will record the act of declining the report in the chart’s background event log. Your results on the Meaningful Use report will indicate that the family was offered the report.

Configure the Patient Visit Summary Report

Use the Patient Visit Summary Configuration tool to configure what will appear on the Patient Visit Summary by default.

Configure Which Office Contact Information Should Appear

First, you can set what location information should appear at the top of the visit summary. Should your practice’s location information appear, or the information for the visit’s scheduled location?

Configure Your Addresses: Your practice’s main address is configured in the Practice Information section of the Configuration Editor ( ced ). You can edit your other location addresses in the Places of Service table in the Table Editor ( ted ). Before you adjust this feature, you may want to review your Places of Service table and update addresses and phone numbers. Contact PCC Support for help with these Partner configuration tools.

Configure Problem List Notes

If your visit summary is going to include the patient’s problems from the Problem List, you can indicate whether the problem notes should appear as well.

Customize Other Report Content

You can configure what visit information and other patient information should appear on the visit summary.

For example, your practice may want future appointments and orders to appear, but you may decide that allergies and care plan information should not appear on the default Patient Visit Summary. Also, if your practice uses the Patient Visit Summary as a lab requisition form, or to communicate encounter information with other third-parties, you may want to check the “Display ICD-10” checkbox.

Customization Does Not Override Confidential Orders: The customization features allow you to display or hide orders from the Patient Visit Summary report. However, if a specific order’s “Include on Patient Reports” checkbox is deselected, that order will not appear on the Patient Visit Summary even when Orders are selected.

Configure Chief Complaint and Clinical Instructions

If you would like the visit’s Chief Complaint or Clinical Instructions to appear on the Patient Visit Summary report, you must configure which chart note components your practice uses to track that information during a visit.

In the example above, the practice indicated that any charted information in the generic Chief Complaint or custom “Chief Complaint–asthma” components should appear as the patient’s Chief Complaint on the Patient Visit Summary report. The practice has also indicated two different Plan components that should appear as Clinical Instructions.

You can add or remove any chart note components that you would like to appear on the Patient Visit Summary report as Chief Complaint or as Clinical Instructions. When you generate the report, PCC EHR will use any information it finds in the assigned components for the visit.

Related Articles

• Here are some related articles in Clinical Tasks > Generate Clinical Reports :

Run Reports in the PCC EHR Report Library

Run the Clinical Quality Measures Report

Run the Meaningful Use Measures Report

Find and Share Patient Education and Handouts

Phone Encounter Performance Report

Health Information Summary Report

Patient Lists

Patient Reminders

Get Started with Direct Secure Messaging

Summary of Care Record Report

The PCC EHR Audit Log

Vaccine Lot Report

Report on Lab Test Results in PCC EHR

Washington State C-CDA Submission for Apple Care Patients

Create a Custom Report

Find and Recall Patients Who Are Overdue for Vaccines

Send and Receive Direct Secure Messages

Restrict Access to Reports in the PCC EHR Report Library

Recall Patients Who Are Overdue for Vaccines

Schedule Reports in PCC EHR

Video: Schedule Reports in PCC EHR

Send, Receive, and Reconcile Direct Secure Messages

Clinical Document Exchange: The Responder Role

A better after-visit summary

After-visit summaries are a mess. Some information is redundant, and some information is missing. Let's face it, does it matter if all your other doctors are on that sheet of paper? There has to be a better way. So Modern Healthcare set out to find it, asking around the industry to help create a summary that is useful for patients and providers alike. This is what we came up with. We want your help to make this after-visit summary even better. Submit your comments and critiques at the end of this article; we'll take those into account and create an updated version, which we'll publish soon. Download the PDF.

Our version of the form:

The experts weigh in:

Dr. Alex Federman, PROFESSOR, ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE: “What are the best practices for communicating information in print? Lots of white space, simple ideas expressed on a single line, no run-on sentences, information clearly grouped together.”

Dr. Eric Schneider: “If we thought about the visit as a co-planned use of time, the patient would say what they want to put on the list, the provider would say what they want to put on the list, and together they'd choose the most important.”

Federman: “We did some research with patients, and we learned that at the very top, they didn't want a crowded header—they wanted to know who their doctor is, who they saw, what number to call when they need something.”

TO DO LIST:

Schneider: “The No. 1 element is what the next steps are, whether that's changing a medication or making an appointment with somebody else or buying something from the drugstore. That should be front and center.”

Dr. Farzad Mostashari, CEO, ALEDADE: “It's important to have anticipatory guidance—if this happens, then 
do that.”

Federman: “People want actionable steps and concrete instructions.”

VITAL SIGNS:

Federman: “This kind of surprised us: People wanted to see their weight and their blood pressure.”

MEDICATION LIST:

Federman: “This is something that many of them do carry around with them, that they'll bring with them on a visit to a doctor. They wanted to see the brand and the generic names, and they wanted to see what the medication is for. ... Often you'll see a list of current meds and a separate list of meds to start and to stop. Patients find that very confusing.”

Send us a letter

Have an opinion about this story?  Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor , and we may publish it in print.

Modern Healthcare A.M. Newsletter: Sign up to receive a comprehensive weekday morning newsletter designed for busy healthcare executives who need the latest and most important healthcare news and analysis.

• Current News
• Safety & Quality
• Digital Health
• Care Delivery
• Digital Edition (Web Version)
• Layoff Tracker
• Sponsored Content: Vital Signs Blog
• From the Editor
• Nominate/Eligibility
• 100 Most Influential People
• 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
• 40 Under 40
• Best Places to Work in Healthcare
• Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
• Innovators Awards
• Diversity Leaders
• Women Leaders
• Digital Health Summit
• Leadership Symposium
• Social Determinants of Health Symposium
• Women Leaders in Healthcare Conference
• Best Places to Work Awards Gala
• Diversity Leaders Gala
• - Future of Staffing
• - Health Equity & Environmental Sustainability
• - Hospital of the Future
• - Financial Resiliency
• - Value Based Care
• - Looking Ahead to 2025
• Podcast - Beyond the Byline
• Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
• Sponsored Video Series - One on One
• Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
• Data & Insights Home
• Hospital Financials
• Staffing & Compensation
• Quality & Safety
• Mergers & Acquisitions
• Skilled Nursing Facilities
• Data Archive
• Resource Guide: By the Numbers
• Data Points
• Newsletters
• People on the Move
• Reprints & Licensing
• Sponsored Content

• Search Menu
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About Family Practice
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, conclusions, declaration, acknowledgement.

• < Previous

After-visit summaries in primary care: mixed methods results from a literature review and stakeholder interviews

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Courtney R Lyles, Reena Gupta, Lina Tieu, Alicia Fernandez, After-visit summaries in primary care: mixed methods results from a literature review and stakeholder interviews, Family Practice , Volume 36, Issue 2, April 2019, Pages 206–213, https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmy045

• Permissions Icon Permissions

After-visit summary (AVS) documents presenting key information from each medical encounter have become standard in the USA due to federal health care reform. Little is known about how they are used or whether they improve patient care.

First, we completed a literature review and described the totality of the literature on AVS by article type and major outcome measures. Next, we used reputational sampling from large-scale US studies on primary care to identify and interview nine stakeholders on their perceptions of AVS across high-performing primary care practices. Interviews were transcribed and coded for AVS use in practice, perceptions of the best/worst features and recommendations for improving AVS utility in routine care.

The literature review resulted in 17 studies; patients reported higher perceived value of AVS compared with providers, despite poor recall of specific AVS content and varied post-visit use. In key informant interviews, key informants expressed enthusiasm for the potential of using AVS to reinforce key information with patients, especially if AVS were customizable. Despite this potential, key informants found that AVS included incorrect information and did not feel that patients or their practices were using AVS to enhance care.

There is a gap between the potential of AVS and how providers and patients are using it in routine care. Suggestions for improved use of AVS include increasing customization, establishing care team responsibilities and workflows and ensuring patients with communication barriers have dedicated support to review AVS during visits.

Spurred by US health care reform and the subsequent Meaningful Use financial incentives, many US health care systems and clinicians have implemented electronic health records (EHRs) that adhere to specific requirements. This includes the requirement to provide a written clinical summary from the EHR to patients after each clinical encounter ( 1 )—referred to as an after-visit summary (AVS). AVS have had a rapid introduction into clinical practice ( 2 ), given that the vast majority of US hospitals (94%) and office-based health professionals (77%) met Stage 1 Meaningful Use metrics in 2014 ( 3 , 4 ), of which AVS was a core component. Even with impending changes to the Meaningful Use program in the coming years ( 5 ), the current practice of visit summaries in primary care is likely to continue as a part of patient-centred care, especially since consumers are now accustomed to written encounter summaries.

By providing patients with a written record of medical decisions and care plans, the use of AVS has the potential to improve patient knowledge, self-management and patient–provider communication. Numerous studies have documented barriers patients face in understanding and remembering information about their treatments and care plans after a visit ( 6–9 ). In particular, AVS use may hold great potential in addressing the well-documented barriers to patient–provider communication and shared decision making faced by vulnerable patients with limited health literacy and limited English proficiency ( 10–14 ). Despite this potential, there is limited research that explores AVS implementation in clinical practice and how its use has impacted patient and provider outcomes.

Because of the paucity of information available, there were two complementary objectives of this study: (i) to explore the existing literature on the current use of AVS and (ii) to gain perspectives from clinical leaders about the current implementation and potential for integrating AVS into clinical practice. In particular, we sought to integrate findings from these objectives, with a specific focus on vulnerable patient populations.

Literature review

In January 2018, we conducted a comprehensive search on PubMed to identify articles from the queries ‘after visit summary’, ‘visit summary’, ‘visit discharge’ and ‘clinical summary’. Papers were included if they (i) were published in English language and (ii) represented research conducted in the USA (where the term AVS is most commonly used). We excluded papers if (i) they mentioned the term AVS (such as being listed as one of many related EHR tools) but did not provide any data on AVS use specifically or (ii) if they were referring to a broader process of visit communication that did not involve the standardized AVS tool. We also reviewed the references lists of included articles to identify additional studies with a focus on AVS use. Although we had a specific interest in the impact of AVS use among vulnerable patients, we conducted a broad literature review on AVS because there were few studies identified overall.

The included articles were categorized by study type, as there was wide variation in the research goals. For example, several studies focused on provider perceptions/use of the AVS, which varied greatly from studies assessing the readability of the document or longer term patient understanding of the information provided. We also categorized the research methods employed as higher (e.g. trials, strong comparison groups) versus lower quality (e.g. case studies, lack of comparison group). Finally, within each type of research study, the small sample size of the included articles allowed us to directly summarize the major findings and provide examples of the key outcomes examined.

Key informant interviews

To complement this literature review, we also conducted a small qualitative study among leaders in primary care about their perceptions of AVS use in routine practice. Rather than using a random sampling approach that might have captured practices without any current routine AVS use, we instead used purposive sampling to identify a sample of leaders in high-performing primary care practices more likely to be attesting for Meaningful Use certification in their practices. Specifically, we first used reputational sampling from published literature of large demonstration projects that systematically identified high-performing sites in both academic and safety primary care sites ( 15 , 16 )—identifying and interviewing experts who had recently completed multiple site visits and in-depth observations of primary care practices nationally (including variation by region and practice type). We then used snowball sampling to identify the remaining key informants, ensuring that a significant portion (at least 1/3) of key informants were leaders or had extensive experience working with safety net health care settings, as this was a major objective of our study. This selection process did not target positive versus negative opinions of AVS use specifically, as interviewees had experience with AVS in practice that could have differed substantially from one another. In total, we conducted interviews with key informants from nine primary care sites, concluding after we had reached thematic saturation of the current types of AVS use.

We used a semi-structured interview guide to gain perspectives about (i) current AVS practices within their system (e.g. who is responsible for AVS distribution, the process for distributing AVS and how AVS information is customized), (ii) the potential of AVS to improve patient knowledge and outcomes within their system and more broadly across primary care systems nationwide, (iii) strategies to improve the use of AVS and (iv) specific considerations for using AVS for the care of individuals with limited English proficiency and limited health literacy.

The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. We used descriptive qualitative methods ( 17 ) to organize, categorize and code the transcripts across all of the major interview discussion topics. More specifically, we coded discrete information provided in the interviews into categories (such as the staff member responsible for AVS distribution at each site, the AVS features used the most, the AVS features viewed as least useful), as well as used thematic coding to capture broader ideas about team-based care, workflows and other topics that could influence the impact of AVS use in clinical care. All four co-authors conducted the key informant interviews and reached consensus on the final coding categories and emergent themes, and two of the co-authors (CRL and LT) completed the coding process on all transcripts once the codebook was established.

The University of California San Francisco Institutional Review Board deemed this study as not classifying as human subjects research.

Our literature review resulted in 263 articles (243 from PubMed, 20 manually identified from reference lists). We excluded 246 articles, resulting in 17 final articles ( Table 1 ). We developed four major categories of studies (not mutually exclusive):

Summary of articles included in after visit summary (AVS) literature review

EHRs, electronic health records; RCT, randomized controlled trial.

1. Case studies of implementation ( 15 , 18–22 );

2. Qualitative/quantitative assessments of patient perceptions ( 23–30 );

3. Qualitative/quantitative assessments of clinician perceptions ( 18 , 25 , 26 , 28 , 31 );

4. Observational studies or interventional research ( 25 , 32 , 33 ).

A substantial number of these studies used less rigorous methodological designs (such as convenience samples with pre-post self-reported measures); but 8 of the 14 studies ( 23–29 , 31 ) employed in-depth survey, qualitative or experimental methods.

Examples or case studies of AVS implementation in real-world practice

The articles examining implementation of AVS emphasized team-based approaches that utilized standard workflows. One study encouraged team-based responsibility, with nurses and medical assistants (MAs) delivering the AVS and care plan at the conclusion of the visit ( 15 ). Another study discussed the potential to integrate AVS into a health coaching model, using the AVS document as a tool to assess patient understanding ( 19 ). In the three content analyses, one study found only half of AVS contained information about follow-up appointments and only a quarter contained tailored AVS sections ( 18 ), while the others found that AVS were written with complex language and at a readability level requiring a higher level of education to understand ( 22 , 34 ).

Patient perceptions of AVS

Patient perspectives on AVS were favourable. In total, four qualitative studies ( 23 , 26 , 28 , 29 ) reported that patients used the document to relay information to their families or other physicians ( 23 , 28 , 29 ). However, patients expressed concerns about the accuracy of their information ( 26 , 28 , 29 ) and the potential for privacy breaches ( 28 , 29 ). While the overall readability of the AVS was problematic in some cases ( 26 , 29 ), many patients desired more information (such as more detailed information or context about their diagnoses and treatment/disease management) ( 30 ). Quantitative studies ( 24 , 25 , 27 ) echoed these themes: a vast majority of patients found the AVS useful, but only half or fewer reported using them after the visit.

Clinician perceptions of AVS

The studies examining clinician perceptions were focused on physicians. Overall, physicians had moderately favourable views of the ease and potential of using AVS for patient care and education ( 25 , 28 , 31 ). However, they expressed concerns about the high complexity of information and the lack of tailoring to the needs of specific patients ( 25 , 26 , 28 ), particularly with regard to literacy level and language. In addition, physicians expressed concerns about not always having sufficient time during practice to update the problem list or medication list and therefore mentioned errors and extraneous information (e.g. outdated diagnostic codes) ( 31 ).

Observational or interventional research using AVS

Three articles evaluated interventions centred on clinical applications of AVS, most of which did not result in significant findings. There was high variability in whether patients reported using AVS after their initial visits, from a small minority ( 25 ) to a majority of patients who received highly personalized versions ( 32 ). A randomized controlled trial of AVS content did not find significant differences in patient adherence, satisfaction or recall of medical information when directly comparing AVS documents with varying amounts of content ( 25 ). Patients’ recall of the information on the AVS was low (only ~33% of content categories); this recall of information was unexpectedly not related to patients’ health literacy status or the amount of information displayed.

In our key informant interviews, the final sample of nine interviewees represented academic, safety net and private practices ( Table 2 ). The vast majority of participants were using the Epic EHR system in their practice (similar to many other health care settings nationwide ( 35 )), even though we did not use this as a specific inclusion criterion. Despite this, several of the participants were also able to discuss more than one EHR given their experiences with multiple site visits or their previous clinical experience prior to Epic implementation.

Summary of key informant interviewees by site and role

Current state of AVS implementation

A high-level summary of the current AVS use is found in Table 3 . Major findings included the following.

Summary of current after-visit summary (AVS) implementation by interview site

EHRs, electronic health records.

Regular distribution of AVS

Likely driven by Meaningful Use, most clinics issued a printed AVS at the majority (if not all) of visits. In addition, many clinics used the ‘patient instructions’ section of the AVS to include personalized information like counselling recommendations and guidance for self-management.

I would say it’s probably the sections that are most used by the clinician are the blank free text space where you do write out some instructions.

Patients satisfied with AVS, but might not be using it

Several interviewees talked about positive patient perceptions (mirroring the literature review results above): ‘Patients actually really, really like having the information’. However, few to no interviewees suggested that the patients referred to the AVS post-visit: ‘I think the patient treats it like they would treat any other confusing piece of paper, which is either to throw it away before they leave the clinic or after they get home’.

Clinics not using AVS for patient teaching

The majority of practices did not use the AVS in a standard way to reinforce specific information with patients, instead printing and handing it out without explanation.

I’ve yet to find anyone, anyplace where someone goes over the After Visit Summary with the patient. And I’ve asked many places [even in high-performing sites] because it seems so obvious that you want to do that in terms of closing the loop…. It’s such a terrific way to close the loop, and it’s just surprising. People just don’t do it.

Slightly less than half of interviewees did mention highlighting some information on the AVS. Yet this was not done in a standardized way across clinicians or visits.

Importance of specific features of the current AVS

When considering specific features of the AVS ( Table 4 ), almost all participants expressed that the patient instructions section was most useful because of the ability to customize information easily. The medication list (if accurate) was also mentioned as useful. Finally, upcoming visits and care plans were also highlighted as potentially important (but perhaps not always standard).

Summary of best and worst features of after-visit summary (AVS) document by interview site

Next steps: overcoming barriers

The key informants unanimously felt that AVS could improve clinical outcomes if utilized properly. When asked about future changes in the Meaningful Use program related to the AVS, interviewees did not foresee abandoning this document in practice.

I think [the AVS] could be really important. I don’t think it’s important the way it’s used now, but I think it could be extremely important and extremely helpful.

Moving forward, improvements in AVS use were related to the following themes:

Team-based workflows

Interviewees expressed that non-clinicians are well positioned to use the AVS with patients for operational next steps (like follow-up appointments). Within the one clinic with a standard MA workflow already in place, the interviewee commented, ‘MAs really like it. They like being part of the process of closing the loop and just helping the patient with those final details’. In addition, MAs or other staff could likely counsel related to lifestyle (such as diet or exercise) or other content with additional training and/or support. For example, one interviewee stated that the MA could use the AVS more effectively, but only with guidance from a provider:

The problem is the MA would have to know which part of the After Visit Summary to go over because you don’t want to go over more than like a couple of things, because people are not going to walk on practice remembering eight or 10 things.

Focus within the AVS

In addition, there were many comments related to the idea that the AVS ‘seems to want to serve too many purposes’. In addition to multiple content areas like medications and diagnoses, clinicians also wrote in personalized instructions in varying ways. Therefore, the current AVS format was long and complex, especially to find specific necessary information from a single visit. Increased ability to customize the AVS in straightforward ways was viewed as critical.

Tailoring by language and literacy

Because the AVS was not available in non-English languages or with low-literacy text, interviewees requested adjusting content to improving patient communication. For example:

For our folks that speak other languages, we are really limited in terms of written instructions we can provide for them. I don’t have any good workaround for that. If there’s a way to do like the med chart with pictures, not just all words… [The AVS is] basically four pages of words.

Among a small amount of published literature on the topic, we found that patients perceive AVS positively, but few appear to routinely refer to the document after the visit. Clinicians surveyed in the published literature were less satisfied than patients with AVS. Moreover, beyond this literature review of existing research, we also conducted our own qualitative investigation among primary care leaders about their perceptions of AVS in high-performing clinical practices. Among these key informant interviewees, we found similar implementation experiences across a varied group of primary care practices. While a hardcopy AVS were distributed in virtually all encounters, there was uncertainty about whether patients used AVS and a lack of routine practice to educate patients about AVS content. The customized patient instructions section was viewed as most useful within the AVS, but this could be buried in the midst of other content. Despite such challenges, interviewees expressed overall positivity about the potential of the AVS to improve patient understanding in the future.

This is the first study to our knowledge that comprehensively studied the current use of AVS in real-world practices in combination with stakeholder perceptions across multiple health care settings about the best ways to improve AVS use for maximum impact. While interviewees in this study provided recommendations for improving the content of AVS to improve implementation, any content changes would be insufficient without additional workflows to support patient use and understanding. Future research is needed to understand whether and how AVS contribute to improved patient outcomes (e.g. understanding/retention, clinical outcomes) and to directly compare the impact of different workflows of AVS distribution. There is no published literature about electronic delivery of AVS through online patient portals, or comparisons of digital versus printed distribution. In addition, there is a need for research to compare workflows of teach-back ( 36 ) using AVS to determine the best modes for patient understanding and retention.

Our study supports previous research on patient–provider communication. For example, patients in our literature review expressed high interest in access to information from their medical encounters via AVS, which is similar to many other studies on patient interest in and satisfaction with access to their online medical record information ( 37 , 38 ). Moreover, our findings support previous work that that training and/or tools can improve in-person communication ( 39 ), especially for vulnerable patient populations ( 40 , 41 ), but this is the first study to our knowledge of whether the AVS is being used for patient education and teach-back. Moreover, implementation of these improved communication strategies into real-world settings requires overcoming obstacles such as under-staffing and insufficient time during visits.

There are several limitations of this study. First, the literature review may have missed studies using a structured process for delivering patient education materials at the conclusion of visits or hospitalizations. In addition, our qualitative sample was small and is not broadly generalizable, and most participants gave feedback on a single EHR product. In addition, the interviewees were all providers without any patient representation. However, we reached thematic saturation with this small but diverse set of interviewees across multiple health care settings.

Moving forward, patient summaries of information like AVS will likely continue to play a role in primary care. AVS utility for both patients and clinicians will likely increase as content and design are improved. The growth of the patient-centred medical home and the emphasis on team-based care will likely result in new roles and responsibilities for communication with patients, and AVS may take centre stage in workflow redesign. Over time, as federal policies and incentives for EHR use change, AVS will survive only if clinicians and patients find them relevant and useful.

Funding: The Roundtable on Health Literacy of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provided support for our investigations into AVS. CRL is supported by AHRQ R00HS022408.

Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.

We would like to thank all the people we interviewed who contributed their time to this project.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . 2015 Meaningful Use Definitions and Objectives . http://www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/meaningful-use-definition-objectives ( accessed on 14 May 2015 ).

Blumenthal D , Tavenner M . The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records . N Engl J Med 2010 ; 363 : 501 – 4 .

Google Scholar

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . 2014 Hospitals Participating in the CMS EHR Incentive Programs . http://dashboard.healthit.gov/quickstats/pages/FIG-Hospitals-EHR-Incentive-Programs.php ( accessed on 14 May 2015 ).

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services . 2014 . Office-based Health Care Professional Participation in the CMS EHR Incentive Programs . http://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/01/19/ehr-incentive-programs-where-we-go-from-here/ ( accessed on 14 May 2015 ).

Slavitt A , DeSalvo K . EHR incentive programs: where we go next . The CMS Blog .

Stevenson FA , Barry CA , Britten N , Barber N , Bradley CP . Doctor-patient communication about drugs: the evidence for shared decision making . Soc Sci Med 2000 ; 50 : 829 – 40 .

Roter DL , Hall JA . Studies of doctor-patient interaction . Annu Rev Public Health 1989 ; 10 : 163 – 80 .

Sarkar U , Schillinger D , Bibbins-Domingo K et al.  Patient-physicians’ information exchange in outpatient cardiac care: time for a heart to heart ? Patient Educ Couns 2011 ; 85 : 173 – 9 .

Hummel J , Evans P. Providing Clinical Summaries to Patients after Each Visit: A Technical Guide . Seattle, WA : Qualis Health , 2012 .

Google Preview

Peek ME , Odoms-Young A , Quinn MT et al.  Race and shared decision-making: perspectives of African-Americans with diabetes . Soc Sci Med 2010 ; 71 : 1 – 9 .

Aboumatar HJ , Carson KA , Beach MC , Roter DL , Cooper LA . The impact of health literacy on desire for participation in healthcare, medical visit communication, and patient reported outcomes among patients with hypertension . J Gen Intern Med 2013 ; 28 : 1469 – 76 .

Institute of Medicine . Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion . Washington, DC : National Academies Press (US) , 2004 .

Schillinger D . Literacy and health communication: reversing the ‘inverse care law’ . Am J Bioeth 2007 ; 7 : 15 – 8 .

Schillinger D , Bindman A , Wang F , Stewart A , Piette J . Functional health literacy and the quality of physician-patient communication among diabetes patients . Patient Educ Couns 2004 ; 52 : 315 – 23 .

Sinsky CA , Willard-Grace R , Schutzbank AM et al.  In search of joy in practice: a report of 23 high-functioning primary care practices . Ann Fam Med 2013 ; 11 : 272 – 8 .

Wagner EH , Gupta R , Coleman K . Practice transformation in the safety net medical home initiative: a qualitative look . Med Care 2014 ; 52 ( 11 suppl 4 ): S18 – 22 .

Sandelowski M . Whatever happened to qualitative description ? Res Nurs Health 2000 ; 23 : 334 – 40 .

Salmon C , O’Conor R , Singh S et al.  Characteristics of outpatient clinical summaries in the United States . Int J Med Inform 2016 ; 94 : 75 – 80 .

Bodenheimer T , Laing BY . The teamlet model of primary care . Ann Fam Med 2007 ; 5 : 457 – 61 .

Jiggins K . A content analysis of the meaningful use clinical summary: do clinical summaries promote patient engagement ? Prim Health Care Res Dev 2015 ; 17: 1 – 14 .

Kanter M , Martinez O , Lindsay G , Andrews K , Denver C . Proactive office encounter: a systematic approach to preventive and chronic care at every patient encounter . Perm J 2010 ; 14 : 38 – 43 .

Colorafi K , Moua L , Shaw M , Ricker D , Postma J . Assessing the value of the meaningful use clinical summary for patients and families with pediatric asthma . J Asthma 2017 ; 55:1–9.

Tang PC , Newcomb C . Informing patients: a guide for providing patient health information . J Am Med Inform Assoc 1998 ; 5 : 563 – 70 .

Neuberger M , Dontje K , Holzman G et al.  Examination of office visit patient preferences for the after-visit summary (AVS) . Perspect Health Inf Manag 2014 ; 11 : 1d .

Pavlik V , Brown AE , Nash S , Gossey JT . Association of patient recall, satisfaction, and adherence to content of an electronic health record (EHR)-generated after visit summary: a randomized clinical trial . J Am Board Fam Med 2014 ; 27 : 209 – 18 .

Black H , Gonzalez R , Priolo C et al.  True “meaningful use”: technology meets both patient and provider needs . Am J Manag Care 2015 ; 21 : e329 – 37 .

Emani S , Healey M , Ting DY et al.  Awareness and use of the after-visit summary through a patient portal: evaluation of patient characteristics and an application of the theory of planned behavior . J Med Internet Res 2016 ; 18 : e77 .

Federman AD , Sanchez-Munoz A , Jandorf L et al.  Patient and clinician perspectives on the outpatient after-visit summary: a qualitative study to inform improvements in visit summary design . J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 ; 24 : e61 – 68 .

Belyeu BM , Klein JW , Reisch LM et al.  Patients’ perceptions of their doctors’ notes and after-visit summaries: a mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics . Health Expect 2017 ; 21 : 485 – 93 .

Clarke MA , Moore JL , Steege LM et al.  Toward a patient-centered ambulatory after-visit summary: identifying primary care patients’ information needs . Health Soc Care Community 2017 ; 43: 1 – 16 .

Emani S , Ting DY , Healey M et al.  Physician perceptions and beliefs about generating and providing a clinical summary of the office visit . Appl Clin Inform 2015 ; 6 : 577 – 90 .

Anbar RD , Anbar JS , Hashim MA . Use of an after-visit summary to augment mental health of children and adolescents . Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2015 ; 54 : 1009 – 11 .

Dehen RI , Carter SU , Watanabe M . Impact of after visit summaries on patient return rates at an acupuncture and oriental medicine clinic . Med Acupunct 2014 ; 26 : 221 – 5 .

Jiggins K . A content analysis of the meaningful use clinical summary: do clinical summaries promote patient engagement ? Prim Health Care Res Dev 2016 ; 17 : 238 – 51 .

Koppel R , Lehmann CU . Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems . J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015 ; 22: 465–71.

Use the Teach-Back Method: Tool #5 . 2015 ; http://www.ahrq.gov/professionals/quality-patient-safety/quality-resources/tools/literacy-toolkit/healthlittoolkit2-tool5.html (accessed on 4 February 2018).

Ralston JD , Carrell D , Reid R et al.  Patient web services integrated with a shared medical record: patient use and satisfaction . J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007 ; 14 : 798 – 806 .

Tieu L , Sarkar U , Schillinger D et al.  Barriers and facilitators to online portal use among patients and caregivers in a safety net health care system: a qualitative study . J Med Internet Res 2015 ; 17 : e275 .

Ha Dinh TT , Bonner A , Clark R , Ramsbotham J , Hines S . The effectiveness of the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in health education for people with chronic disease: a systematic review . JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep 2016 ; 14 : 210 – 47 .

Wolff K , Cavanaugh K , Malone R et al.  The diabetes literacy and numeracy education toolkit (DLNET): materials to facilitate diabetes education and management in patients with low literacy and numeracy skills . Diabetes Educ 2009 ; 35 : 233 – 45 .

White RO , Eden S , Wallston KA et al.  Health communication, self-care, and treatment satisfaction among low-income diabetes patients in a public health setting . Patient Educ Couns 2015 ; 98 : 144 – 9 .

• primary health care
• electronic medical records

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1460-2229
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Ambulatory Care Use and Physician office visits

Data are for the U.S.

• Percent of adults who had a visit with a doctor or other health care professional in the past year: 83.4% (2022)

Source: Interactive Summary Health Statistics for Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2019-2022

• Percent of children who had a visit with a doctor or other health care professional in the past year: 93.9% (2022)

Source: Interactive Summary Health Statistics for Children: National Health Interview Survey, 2019-2022

• Number of visits: 1.0 billion
• Number of visits per 100 persons: 320.7
• Percent of visits made to primary care physicians: 50.3%

Source: National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey: 2019 National Summary Tables, table 1 [PDF – 865 KB]

Related FastStats

• Emergency Department Visits
• Experiences Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic Among U.S. Physicians in Office-based Settings, 2020–2021 [PDF – 305 KB]
• Characteristics of Office-based Physician Visits by Age, 2019 [PDF – 411 KB]
• Urgent Care Center and Retail Health Clinic Utilization Among Adults: United States, 2019
• Characteristics of Office-based Physician Visits, 2018
• Urban-rural Differences in Visits to Office-based Physicians by Adults With Hypertension: United States, 2014–2016 [PDF – 276 KB]
• Physician Office Visits at Which Benzodiazepines Were Prescribed: Findings From 2014–2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey [PDF – 376 KB]
• Characteristics of Asthma Visits to Physician Offices in the United States: 2012–2015 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey [PDF – 876 KB]
• Ambulatory Health Care Data
• National Health Interview Survey
• American Medical Association

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
• Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
• You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
• CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website.

Health Science Center

What Can we help you find?

Popular Searches

• Academic Calendar
• Study Abroad
• Majors & Minors
• Request Info

UT Tyler Health Science Center

Build a healthier tomorrow.

Home to the region’s only academic medical center, The University of Texas at Tyler Health Science Center is one of the five campuses of UT Tyler. Two of UT Tyler’s four health-related schools have a presence on this campus: the School of Health Professions and the School of Medicine.

Campus History

Our Beginnings

Joining the University of Texas System

A Name Change

New Programs

Campus Programs and Facilities

The UT Tyler Health Science Center facility offers an array of crucial medical and healthcare education resources, fostering an environment dedicated to excellence in education. From cutting-edge simulation labs to dedicated research spaces, every aspect of the UT Tyler Health Science Center is designed to enhance the educational experience. This dynamic campus is not just a hub for learning; it’s a catalyst for progress in healthcare education and a testament to UT Tyler's commitment to shaping the future of healthcare in the East Texas region.

Office of Health Affairs

School of Health Professions

School of Medicine

Center for Biomedical Research

Simulation in Medicine and Immersive Learning Experience Center

Watson W. Wise Medical Research Library

Public Health Laboratory of East Texas

UT Health North Campus Tyler (UTHET)

HOPE Cancer Center

A Regional Leader in Health Research

UT Tyler pioneers solutions to improve health. Several research centers, including the Center for Mycobacterial Treatment and Discovery and the Center for Biomedical Research, are housed on this campus. The centers build on our history of innovative treatments for lung disease and focus on the health concerns of rural populations through projects funded by agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Students benefit from hands-on research opportunities and instruction informed by the latest developments in the field. 

Dr. Maolin Lu

Assistant Professor of Cellular and Molecular Biology

Meet Professor Lu

Community Outreach and Engagement

Ut health east texas.

In its regional network of hospitals, clinics and other facilities, UT Health East Texas delivers world-class care to thousands of patients each year while conducting clinical trials and training the next generation of professionals through UT Tyler’s unique programs. The UT Tyler Health Science Center is home to UT Health North Campus Tyler .

Public Health Programs

Faculty, staff and students at the UT Tyler Health Science Center campus connect their expertise with local community needs to assist traditionally underserved populations through an array of health and outreach programs, including behavioral health telemedicine services for rural populations, cancer screenings, parental education, lifestyle changes and more.

Regional Health Resources

To strengthen regional healthcare, we train community health workers, promote healthcare careers in underrepresented communities and support community health education and development efforts.

Connect With Us

The university of texas at tyler health science center.

Phone:   903.877.7777

We’re pioneering the future of healthcare in East Texas. Find out how you can join us.

11937 U.S. Hwy. 271 Tyler, TX 75708-3154

Screen Rant

Doctor doom's x-men cameo made marvel's new mutant threat so much worse.

Doctor Doom's surprise cameo appearance in X-Men '97 raises the stakes even higher for the animated show's final episodes and the franchise's future.

• Doctor Doom's appearance in X-Men '97 highlights the serious threat that Bastion poses to the animated universe's mutants.
• Bastion's collaboration with other villains, including Doom, emphasizes the extent of his influence and diabolical plans.
• The villain cameos in X-Men '97 suggest a wide array of Marvel antagonists supporting Bastion, potentially setting the stage for future show reboots.

X-Men '97 uses its Doctor Doom cameo to reinforce just how deadly the show's threat to the animated universe's mutants really is. As the sequel show to X-Men: The Animated Series , X-Men '97 was somewhat destined for a range of exciting cameos, since the original made a point of crossing over with plenty of other Marvel shows. Indeed, X-Men '97 made it clear it had some intentions to feature some of these figures from the start, with a newspaper featuring Spider-Man appearing very early in the show's run.

However, some cameos were more expected than others, with a sneak appearance from the Fantastic Four villain Doctor Doom coming as one of the more out of left field experiences when it comes to X-Men '97 's character roster . Doom is a welcome cameo, but his appearance in X-Men '97 episode 8 isn't just for fan service by any means, as it carries directly implications for the series' current major villain, and potentially for the wider franchise going forward as well.

X-Men '97 Season 2: Characters, Story & Everything We Know

Doctor doom's x-men cameo makes bastion look even more evil, even doctor doom has issues with bastion's plan.

X-Men '97 episode 8 features a surprise cameo from none other than Doctor Doom, who appears as one of the villains that Bastion is collaborating with in his efforts to destroy the X-Men. When discussing these plans, Bastion mentions people's apathy will prevent them from helping the X-Men, leading Victor Von Doom to say, " Do not mistake Doom's collusion as indifference to flagrant war crimes. " While Bastion listens to Doom, his reaction is heavily unconcerned, replying with an offhand comment that he'll send out memos to his allies next time.

Doom's line is an effective way to characterize him with only a few words, but also makes a point of underlining just how diabolical Bastion's machinations truly are. When even a long-term Marvel antagonist like Doctor Doom essentially calls the scheme immoral by his own standards, viewers are made to understand exactly how far Bastion is going , continuing to show that he's twisted even by many villain's own standards - something initially set up when X-Men: The Animated Series villain Henry Gyrich appealed to the X-Men in X-Men '97 episode 7 for help because of the threat that Bastion poses.

Doctor Doom's X-Men '97 Appearance Shows How Big Bastion's Influence Is

Bastion's control over other villains makes his status even clearer.

X-Men '97 's villain cameos work in terms of showing the wider-reaching universe - in the same way the cameos featuring Captain America and Spider-Man have tied the universe closer together. However, they also are effective in suggesting Bastion has essentially commandeered a considerable section of the animated universe's cast to play a role in his plot, including some other major players in the wider Marvel landscape.

Doctor Doom expressing discontent with Bastion's plan but still agreeing to go along with it is the perfect example of this, as while Doom is no doubt partially agreeing because it benefits him, there's a sense that even if he wished to disagree, it wouldn't change very much in the big scheme of things. Using another villain in this role could make them feel small, but given the extensive villainous history of Doctor Doom as a powerful and imposing figure, this instead makes Bastion's presence all the more pressing.

X-Men '97's Villain Cameos Tease An Animated Universe Expansion

X-men '97's villain cameos make future show reboots more likely.

Doctor Doom and Baron Zemo are the main villain cameos shown in X-Men '97 's Bastion scene, but there are many, many other screens shown behind the villain, suggesting a wide array of Marvel antagonists are in the wings to support and carry out Bastion's murderous plans. This would make sense given X-Men '97 repeatedly makes a point to show that the other shows X-Men: The Animated Series originally crossed over with are still part of its canon now, making a major crossover of villains from various shows a logical path forwards.

This would potentially make Doctor Doom's line a particularly shrewd move, by ensuring there's a justifiable reason for other prospective shows down the line to not necessarily have their villains work together by establishing from the offset that the universe's antagonists, despite having some shared goals, also have a range of different priorities and morals. As such, if further show reboots do blossom out of X-Men '97 , they'll do so with a helpful backdrop for whatever plot they wish stocked up, ensuring a hopeful future going forward.

X-Men '97

*Availability in US

Not available

X-Men '97 is the direct continuation of the popular 1990s animated series X-Men: The Animated Series. Taking up where the third season left off, Marvel's revival brings back famous mutants such as Wolverine, Storm, Rogue, Gambit, Cyclops, Beast, Magneto, and Nightcrawler, who fight villains like Mr. Sinister, the Sentinels, and the Hellfire Club.

Pregnancy-related deaths are dropping. Here's why doctors aren't satisfied.

The number of women dying while pregnant is returning to pre-pandemic levels following a worrisome 2021 spike, a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.

In 2022, 817 U.S. women died either while pregnant or soon after giving birth, down from 1,205 the previous year.

“If you look at 2021, we had such a sharp increase as we were really still in the pandemic and still dealing with disruptions of care, the fear of coming into the healthcare space and the inability to access care during that time,” said Dr. Veronica Gillispie-Bell, an OB-GYN at Ochsner Medical Center in Kenner, Louisiana. She was not involved in the new report, which was published Thursday by the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics .

The maternal mortality rate in 2022 was 22.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, compared with 32.9 per 100,000 in 2021, according to the new report.

“It’s looking like it’s returning to a pre-pandemic level,” said Donna Hoyert, the report’s author and an NCHS health scientist. The same appears to be true for preliminary 2023 data , she said.

Decreases were noted across all age groups and races, though Black women continue to be disproportionately affected. Their maternal mortality rate was 49.5 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2022. In 2021, it was 69.9 deaths per 100,000.

“We still have a long way to go to create really meaningful prevention interventions and strategies to decrease mortality,” said Dr. Warner Huh, an OB-GYN and head of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, “particularly among Black women and women of color.” Huh was not involved with the NCHS report.

The accuracy of NCHS's maternal mortality data, which comes from death certificates, has long been scrutinized . More than a decade ago, the research group noted that many deaths among pregnant women were not being counted because of a problem with medical coding.

In 2003, the NCHS tried to correct the issue by recommending that states add a standardized checkbox to the certificates to make it clear whether the death occurred in a pregnant or recently pregnant woman. It wasn't until 2017 that all states made the change.

A study published last month suggested the checkbox rule grossly overestimated rates of maternal mortality because it wasn’t nuanced enough to determine whether the cause of death was truly related to pregnancy.

Gillispie-Bell, also the medical director of the Louisiana Perinatal Quality Collaborative at the state’s department of health, said she disagreed with those findings because they did not account for mental health conditions.

And according to CDC data, the most common cause of death during or just after pregnancy is related to mental health conditions, which include drug and alcohol use disorder.

Hoyert said her group continues to refine the quality of the data.

“If we didn’t use the checkbox, we would be right back where we were in the past, when we were getting roundly criticized for missing a substantial percent of maternal deaths,” she said.

While it appears that the numbers are “trending in the right direction,” Huh said, “they’re still too high.”

“No mother should come into pregnancy with a fear that she is going to die delivering her baby,” Gillispie-Bell said. “As long as mothers are dying, we still have work to do.”

Erika Edwards is a health and medical news writer and reporter for NBC News and "TODAY."

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

Back to Black

The life and music of Amy Winehouse, through the journey of adolescence to adulthood and the creation of one of the best-selling albums of our time. The life and music of Amy Winehouse, through the journey of adolescence to adulthood and the creation of one of the best-selling albums of our time. The life and music of Amy Winehouse, through the journey of adolescence to adulthood and the creation of one of the best-selling albums of our time.

• Sam Taylor-Johnson
• Matt Greenhalgh
• Marisa Abela
• Eddie Marsan
• Jack O'Connell
• 65 User reviews
• 67 Critic reviews
• 49 Metascore

• Nick Shymansky

• Perfume Paul
• Great Auntie Renee

• Uncle Harold
• Auntie Melody

• All cast & crew
• Production, box office & more at IMDbPro

More like this

Did you know

• Trivia Marisa Abela had done most of the singing in this film herself. She trained extensively to mimic Amy Winehouse 's vocals.

Technical specs

• Runtime 2 hours 2 minutes

Related news

Contribute to this page.

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More to explore

Recently viewed

New DEA requirements may limit access to buprenorphine, a popular drug for opioid recovery

Doctors and advocates are concerned a federal proposal to roll back a pandemic policy allowing remote prescribing of a common opioid substitute medicine could jeopardize those recovering from addiction. 

With the public health emergency set to end May 11, the Drug Enforcement Administration proposal would require people to visit a doctor or clinic within 30 days of getting a telehealth prescription for buprenorphine. 

The proposal could change how more than 1 million Americans recovering from addiction can access this opioid-substitute medicine, used to stop cravings and block withdrawal symptoms for opioid-use disorder.

Since 2020, the federal government allowed telehealth providers to prescribe the medication without a medical visit to ensure people could still get it during lockdowns and reduce exposure to COVID.  

The DEA, which regulates controlled substances such as buprenorphine, said the in-person visit is a necessary compromise that would allow people to still get the medication from a telehealth provider while reducing the likelihood buprenorphine is diverted for illicit purposes. In its proposed rule, the agency argues doctors also can order tests such as drug and toxicology screens and check for infectious diseases such as hepatitis.

The DEA has said will consider the more than 2,900 public comments as the agency drafts final regulations. The agency has not announced when it will release final rules, expected after the public health emergency ends May 11. 

Amid rising overdose deaths, experts want to make it easier to get buprenorphine

Advocates warn the new rule could disrupt access and make it difficult for some to continue recovery from opioid-use disorder. People who live in remote communities without access to a nearby clinic, in particular, could struggle to obtain doses.

Kevin Roy is chief policy officer with Shatterproof, a nonprofit that addresses addiction treatment.

He said studies show fears buprenorphine would be misused or diverted were "not a concern." He cited a National Institute on Drug Abuse and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study that found opioid overdose deaths involving buprenorphine didn't increase after remote prescribing was allowed. 

Because the studies showed the medication wasn't diverted and buprenorphine deaths didn't increase, Roy sees little purpose for the DEA's proposed rule.

"What problem are they trying to solve with that 30-day limit?" Roy said.

Nearly 107,000 U.S. residents died from a drug overdose in 2021; about 75% of those deaths involved an opioid, mostly illicit fentanyl.  

To counter the stubbornly high number of overdose deaths, "we should try to work with people to make it easy as possible," to start or continue buprenorphine or other addiction-treatment medications, Roy said.

Others worry people won't be able to get a medical appointment if they have to go to a doctor a clinic to get a prescription. There's already a lack of medical providers who prescribe buprenorphine and two other opioid substitutes, methadone and naltrexone. 

In a public comment, the National Rural Health Association said the DEA’s proposal is "overly restrictive" and risks "destabilizing current patients, leading to a dangerous disruption of maintenance treatment potentially triggering relapses or overdoses."

The rural association said telehealth is essential because about one third of rural residents live in a county without a doctor or clinic that offers buprenorphine treatments. 

Others say the DEA rule penalizes telehealth providers who have bridged the provider shortage, especially in rural areas or other communities with a shortage of doctors willing to prescribe.

"Telehealth really fixed a large gap for people," said Jason Gibbons, a health economist at Johns Hopkins University. "This is just another barrier to access."

Gibbons studied how missed buprenorphine doses affect patients. In a study of 34,505 patients, he found people who missed doses were nearly two to four times more likely to overdose than those who took regular doses. 

People have a much easier time staying on the medication when they have the option of remote prescribing, Gibbons said. A shortage of prescribers has been a long-standing problem. A 2020 Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General report found 40% of U.S. counties did not have a single doctor or clinic who prescribed buprenorphine. 

That makes it difficult for some who might not have the transportation to make it to a far-flung clinics. It also can be difficult taking time off work or arranging child care, said Renee Johnson, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

While requiring a doctor's appointment within 30 days seems like a good idea, Johnson said it could discourage people already facing difficult circumstances. The key, she said, is to "make it real easy to get on that on ramp to recovery and stay on that on ramp to recovery." 

Army veteran

Army veteran Bill Bradley worries the DEA's proposal could disrupt routines for many people in recovery.

Bradley lives Fairmont, West Virginia, a town in the north-central part of the state that has no doctors or clinics that prescribe buprenorphine, he said.

The community opened a drop-in shelter a few years ago for the homeless and those who need food, clothes and hygiene supplies. Those with drug dependency issues can meet with a licensed social worker and recovery coaches. Many use the center to make telehealth appointments so they can get buprenorphine, Bradley said

If the DEA proposal is adopted, those residents would need to travel more than a dozen miles north to Morgantown or more than 20 miles south to Clarksburg for an appointment with a prescriber.

Bradley has been on buprenorphine for over a decade after he became dependent on opioid pain medications prescribed to treat his kidney stones. His doctor, located in Pittsburgh, allows him to get mail-order buprenorphine doses because he's been steady on the medication for so long. And if he needs to see the doctor, transportation is provided through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

But he worries others in his town might not stay on buprenorphine if they have to travel out of town for a medical appointment. Many don't have transportation or the money to pay for a cab or Uber ride.

"I'm afraid it's going to put them back into, 'I'll get what's closer. I'll just pick up (illicit drugs) again,'" Bradley said.

Addiction treatment medications 'vastly underused'

National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow said medications for opioid use disorder "continue to be vastly underused."

Congress has sought to make it easier for more doctors to prescribe the medication. Last December, President Joe Biden signed the Mainstreaming Addiction Treatment Act that eliminates a waiver doctors were required to secure before prescribing buprenorphine. Only 1 in 5 patients with opioid-use disorder get buprenorphine or other medication to treat their addiction.

“Expanding more equitable access to these medications for people with substance use disorders is a critical part of our nation’s response to the overdose crisis," Volkow said in a news release.

Ken Alltucker is on Twitter at @kalltucker, or can be emailed at [email protected]

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out

New york’s highest appeals court has overturned the movie producer’s 2020 conviction for sex crimes, which was a landmark in the #metoo movement..

This transcript was created using speech recognition software. While it has been reviewed by human transcribers, it may contain errors. Please review the episode audio before quoting from this transcript and email [email protected] with any questions.

From The New York Times, I’m Katrin Bennhold. This is “The Daily.”

When Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was convicted for sex crimes four years ago, it was celebrated as a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement. Yesterday, New York’s highest appeals court overturned that conviction. My colleague Jodi Kantor on what this ruling means for Weinstein and for the #MeToo movement. It’s Friday, April 26.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

# Jodi, you and your reporting partner, Megan Twohey, were the ones who broke the Harvey Weinstein scandal, which really defined the #MeToo movement and was at the center of this court case. Explain what just happened.

So on Thursday morning, New York’s highest court threw out Harvey Weinstein’s conviction for sex crimes and ordered a new trial. In 2020, he had been convicted of sexually abusing two women. He was sentenced to 23 years in jail. The prosecution really pushed the boundaries, and the conviction was always a little shaky, a little controversial. But it was a landmark sentence, in part because Harvey Weinstein is a foundational figure in the #MeToo movement. And now that all goes back to zero.

He’s not a free man. He was also convicted in Los Angeles. But the New York conviction has been wiped away. And prosecutors have the really difficult decision of whether to leave things be or start again from scratch.

And I know we’ve spent a lot of time covering this case on this show, with you, in fact. But just remind us why the prosecution’s case was seen to be fragile even then.

The controversy of this case was always about which women would be allowed to take the witness stand. So think of it this way. If you took all of the women who have horrifying stories about Harvey Weinstein, they could fill a whole courtroom of their own. Nearly 100 women have come forward with stories about his predation.

However, the number of those women who were candidates to serve at the center of a New York criminal trial was very small. A lot of these stories are about sexual harassment, which is a civil offense, but it cannot send you to prison. It’s not a crime.

Some of these stories took place outside of New York City. Others took place a long time ago, which meant that they were outside of the statute of limitations. Or they were afraid to come forward. So at the end of the day, the case that prosecutors brought was only about two women.

Two out of 100.

Yes. And both of those women stories were pretty complicated. They had disturbing stories of being victimized by Weinstein. But what they also openly admitted is that they had had consensual sex with Weinstein as well. And the conventional prosecutorial wisdom is that it’s too messy for a jury, that they’ll see it as too gray, too blurry, and will hesitate to convict.

So prosecutors, working under enormous public pressure and attention, figured out what they thought was a way to bolster their case, which is that they brought in more witnesses. Remember that part of the power of the Harvey Weinstein story is about patterns. It’s about hearing one woman tell virtually the same story as the next woman.

It becomes this kind of echoing pattern that is so much more powerful than any one isolated story. So prosecutors tried to re-create that in the courtroom. They did that to searing effect. They brought in these additional witnesses who had really powerful stories, and that was instrumental to Weinstein being convicted.

But these were witnesses whose allegations were not actually on trial.

Exactly. Prosecutors were taking a risk by including them because there’s a bedrock principle of criminal law that when a person is on trial, the evidence should pertain directly to the charges that are being examined. Anything extraneous is not allowed. So prosecutors took this risk, and it seemed to pay off in a big way.

When Weinstein was convicted in February of 2020, it was by a whole chorus of women’s voices. # What seemed to be happening is that the legal reality had kind caught up with the logic of the #MeToo movement, in which these patterns, these groups of women, had become so important.

And then, to heighten things, the same thing basically happened in Los Angeles. Weinstein was tried in a second separate trial, and he was also convicted, also with that kind of supporting evidence, and sentenced to another 16 years in prison.

And on the same strategy based on a chorus of women who all joined forces, basically joining their allegations against him.

The rules are different in California. But, yes, it was a similar strategy. So Weinstein goes to jail. The world’s attention moves on. The story appears to end.

But in the background, Weinstein’s lawyers were building a strategy to challenge the fairness of these convictions. And they were basically saying this evidence never should have been admitted in the first place. And Megan and I could tell that Harvey Weinstein’s lawyers were getting some traction.

His first appeal failed. But by watching the proceedings, we could tell that the judges were actually taking the questions pretty seriously. And then Weinstein’s lawyers took their last shot. They made their last case at the highest level of the New York courts, and they won. And that panel of judges overturned the conviction.

And what exactly do these judges say to explain why they threw out this conviction, given that another court had upheld it?

Well, when you read the opinion that came out on Thursday morning, you can feel the judge’s disagreements kind of rising from the pages. # Picture sort of a half-moon of seven judges, four of them female, listening to the lawyer’s arguments, wrestling with whether perhaps the most important conviction of the #MeToo era was actually fair. And in their discussion, you can feel them torn between, on the one hand, the need for accountability, and then, on the other hand, the need for fairness.

So there was a sort of sense that this is an important moment and this case represents something perhaps bigger than itself.

Absolutely. There was a lot of concern, first of all, for what was going to happen to Weinstein himself, all that that symbolized, but also what sort of message they were sending going forward. So in the actual opinion, the judges divide into — let’s call them two teams. The majority are basically behaving like traditionalists.

They’re saying things like, here’s one line — “under our system of justice, the accused has a right to be held to account only for the crime charged.” They’re saying there was just too much other stuff in this trial that wasn’t directly relevant, didn’t directly serve as evidence for the two center acts that were being prosecuted.

So those majority-opinion judges simply say that this was a kind of overreach by the prosecutor, that this isn’t how the criminal justice system works.

Exactly. And then, if we called the first team of judges the traditionalists, let’s call the dissenters the realists. And they’re talking about the way sexual crimes play out in the real world and what’s necessary to effectively prosecute them. And they are incredibly critical of the majority.

They use words like — I’m looking at the pages now — “oblivious,” “naive,” phrases like “an unfortunate step backwards,” “endangering decades of progress,” “perpetuates outdated notions of sexual violence,” “allows predators to escape accountability.” What they’re saying is that these rules of evidence have to be somewhat flexible in the real world, because otherwise they’re not going to capture what really happened.

You can really sense the passion in this argument. You know, you really get the sense that this court is bitterly divided over this question. And what I’m hearing the dissent basically saying is that if we overturn this conviction, we’ll be pushing ourselves backwards. This is regress.

And that the evidence served a really important function in the trial, that something is lost without it.

But in the end, that point of view lost out. In this case, the traditionalist judges prevailed by a single vote.

We’ll be right back.

So, Jodi, now that this conviction has been overturned, what’s next for Harvey Weinstein?

Well, back in New York, prosecutors have a really tough question to face, which is, do they retry this case? On the one hand, the Weinstein conviction meant so much to so many people that to just drop it seems very unsatisfying.

But on the other hand, their attempt failed. Those women are going to be very difficult to get back on the stand. And are they really going to start from zero and do this all over again?

Especially given that this conviction has just been overturned?

Exactly. But meanwhile, the other thing to keep your eye on is the appeals in the California case. Weinstein’s attorney told The Times that next month, they are going to file an appeal in California that will make many of the same arguments that they did in New York.

Now, the California rules are a little clearer on what evidence is admissible. So we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen. But I should add that this attorney is the same one who succeeded in getting Bill Cosby’s conviction thrown out.

So is there a world in which all the convictions against Weinstein will be overturned?

Sure, Katrin. It’s very plausible.

Wow. Now, given that, what does this ruling mean for other legal cases, for other #MeToo cases that are currently moving through the legal system?

Well, it’s definitely a symbolic blow for the #MeToo movement and also for accountability, which is part of what powers the movement. If you think of progress like a wheel spinning forward, part of what powers the wheel is accountability, because women only want to come forward if they think something may actually happen. When they see consequences for some men, it encourages others to step forward.

But that doesn’t really feel like a symbolic blow. # That actually feels like a real setback, because if the promise of accountability was what was driving the #MeToo movement and sort of persuading all these women to come forward, then this ruling seems to be undercutting that.

Well, it’s also a sign of health in the system, because what we’re seeing in prosecutions across the country is more testing of this sort. Prosecutors are starting to bring cases that they never would have brought years before. Maybe they’re messier. Maybe the evidence isn’t perfect. Maybe they’re less traditional.

And so to prove those cases, you have to try to get new kinds of evidence in court. And some of those attempts are going to succeed, as they did in the Weinstein trial the first time around. And some of those efforts are going to fail, as we see with the overturning of the conviction. # But that kind of experimentation, potential expansion, is potentially a sign of the health of the system and the idea that the legal system may be, to some degree, catching up with #MeToo.

So you’re saying another way to look at this case is that it sort of represents a legal system trying to navigate this new reality and sort of trying to figure out in real time how to deal with these kinds of cases. It’s almost like a trial and error, “one step forward, two steps back” dynamic.

But also, I want to add that you can’t score #MeToo like a basketball game. Every time there is some big outcome in a #MeToo case — R. Kelly gets convicted, Governor Cuomo resigns, Bill Cosby gets convicted, Bill Cosby walks free — there can be this temptation to draw huge conclusions from that. It’s a victory for me, too. It’s a loss for me, too.

But these cases are not necessarily reliable indicators of what’s really happening, what’s really changing, because what we’re also seeing is real structural change on the legal level. Laws protecting women have changed in, I think, 23 states since 2017. The New York statute of limitations was extended for rape directly in response to the Weinstein allegations. It’s now much longer.

And recently, New York state opened a kind of new window for survivors to sue for long ago offenses. So even as these individual cases rise and fall one by one, the system is slowly changing.

Hmm. So on the one hand, the Harvey Weinstein case actually changed legislation and created this whole new set of laws around these kinds of cases. But on the other hand, the criminal case against him was ultimately shot down. So I guess my question is, how should we think about the Weinstein case? # And does any of this change the way we should see his case as the kind of defining case of the #MeToo movement, and Weinstein himself as the defining central character?

I think the question that Megan and I have had for a long time is whether any criminal conviction in any city is really the best measure of what Harvey Weinstein did or didn’t do, because at its essence, the Harvey Weinstein story is about work. What was really special about him as a producer, his particular genius, was for making careers.

He made Gwyneth Paltrow. He made Matt Damon, Quentin Tarantino, a lot of producers who are very successful now. That was kind of his superpower. But what we now know is that he also used that superpower to manipulate and hurt women. In story after story about Weinstein, the same motifs come up.

A lot of these women were really young. It was their first day, their first week, their first month on the job. They wanted opportunity. They wanted a piece of the action.

So though the annals of the Harvey Weinstein story do include these instances of very troubling, allegedly criminal behavior, like rape, the essence of the story, I think, is about what happens to women in the workplace — the opportunities they have, the way their ambitions can be used against them. And that’s not something that any criminal court can capture.

You know, when you talk to Weinstein victims, of course, you hear the famous things they’ve said about the kind of physical offenses — the bathroom stories, the hotel room stories. But you also hear them talk about their own careers.

They say things like, I lost opportunities because of this, or, I could never work in Hollywood again. And they say, my whole life is different because of that. I can never get those years back. And it’s just not something that any criminal court is quite built to capture.

So in a way, you’re saying that the story is much bigger than those criminal allegations against Weinstein. In a way, they’re the tip of the iceberg. But underneath, there is this whole culture of men abusing their power, against women in particular, in the workplace.

Exactly. And thanks in large part to the #MeToo movement, this is behavior that used to be widely tolerated, and it’s no longer socially acceptable.

And, Jodi, I wonder, have you spoken to some of the women that you spent years talking to and hearing from who came forward to share their stories about Weinstein and others? Have you spoken to them since this latest news?

Yes, and I have to tell you, the Weinstein survivors are pretty resolute. They don’t really see this as changing the story.

When we first got the news from the court, the first person I called was Ashley Judd, the first actress who came forward about Harvey Weinstein. And what she said to me was that she was disappointed, that this was upsetting, but she was also unwavering. She said to me, “We know what really happened.”

Mm-hmm. And I guess, in some ways, that’s the legacy. The truth was aired in a court of law.

We never knew what the legal system would do. We never knew whether he would be convicted or not. But the story stands. It’s the women who are the narrators of this story now, and that won’t be overturned.

Jodi, thank you very much.

Here’s what else you need to know today. On Thursday, the Supreme Court heard arguments over whether former president Donald Trump should have legal immunity for allegedly interfering with the 2020 presidential election after he lost the race to Joe Biden. Trump’s lawyers have argued that his actions, because he was still president at the time, should be shielded from prosecution.

Their arguments were unanimously rejected in February by a lower court. But on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed more receptive to Trump’s claims. If the court rules in the former president’s favor, it could potentially delay any trial in the matter until after the election.

And one other thing you should know before you go today — this weekend, we’re going to start sharing with you a brand-new show from some of our colleagues. It’s hosted by David Marchese and Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and the idea of the show is simple and classic. Every week, one of them will interview someone fascinating — actors, politicians, athletes, writers. They’re calling their podcast just “The Interview.”

This weekend, their first couple episodes are perfect examples. Lulu speaks with Yair Lapid, the leader of the political opposition in Israel. David speaks with actress Anne Hathaway. We’ll be sending you those shows right here on Saturday and Sunday. I hope you’ll give them a listen.

Today’s episode was produced by Nina Feldman, Rikki Novetsky, and Carlos Prieto. It was edited by MJ Davis Lin and Liz O. Baylen, contains original music by Dan Powell and Elisheba Ittoop, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly.

That’s it for “The Daily.” I’m Katrin Bennhold. See you Monday.

• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters
• April 24, 2024   •   32:18 Is $60 Billion Enough to Save Ukraine?
• April 23, 2024   •   30:30 A Salacious Conspiracy or Just 34 Pieces of Paper?
• April 22, 2024   •   24:30 The Evolving Danger of the New Bird Flu
• April 19, 2024   •   30:42 The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness
• April 18, 2024   •   30:07 The Opening Days of Trump’s First Criminal Trial
• April 17, 2024   •   24:52 Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?
• April 16, 2024   •   29:29 A.I.’s Original Sin

Hosted by Katrin Bennhold

Featuring Jodi Kantor

Produced by Nina Feldman ,  Rikki Novetsky and Carlos Prieto

Edited by M.J. Davis Lin and Liz O. Baylen

Original music by Dan Powell and Elisheba Ittoop

Engineered by Chris Wood

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music

When the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein was convicted of sex crimes four years ago, it was celebrated as a watershed moment for the #MeToo movement. Yesterday, New York’s highest court of appeals overturned that conviction.

Jodi Kantor, one of the reporters who broke the story of the abuse allegations against Mr. Weinstein in 2017, explains what this ruling means for him and for #MeToo.

On today’s episode

Jodi Kantor , an investigative reporter for The New York Times.

Background reading

The verdict against Harvey Weinstein was overturned by the New York Court of Appeals.

Here’s why the conviction was fragile from the start .

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Katrin Bennhold is the Berlin bureau chief. A former Nieman fellow at Harvard University, she previously reported from London and Paris, covering a range of topics from the rise of populism to gender. More about Katrin Bennhold

Jodi Kantor is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter and co-author of “She Said,” which recounts how she and Megan Twohey broke the story of sexual abuse allegations against Harvey Weinstein, helping to ignite the #MeToo movement.    Instagram • More about Jodi Kantor

Advertisement