Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37773508›Full record

ArticleJAMA health forum2023

Unsolicited Patient Complaints Following the 21st Century Cures Act Information-Blocking Rule.

Robert J Dambrino, Henry J Domenico, John A Graves, Melinda J B Buntin, William Martinez, S Trent Rosenbloom, William O Cooper

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA health forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Editorial: How to Make the Most of Open Notes.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Robert J DambrinoDepartment of Neurological Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Henry J DomenicoDepartment of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
John A GravesDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Melinda J B BuntinDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
William MartinezDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
S Trent RosenbloomDepartment of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
William O CooperDepartment of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee.
Vanderbilt University Medical Center · USJohns Hopkins University · USNeurological Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The 21st Century Cures Act includes an information-blocking rule (IBR) that requires health systems to provide patients with immediate access to their health information in the electronic medical record upon request. Patients accessing their health information before they receive an explanation from their health care team may experience confusion and may be more likely to share unsolicited patient complaints (UPCs) with their health care organization. Objective: To evaluate the quantity of UPCs about physicians before and after IBR implementation and to identify themes in UPCs that may identify patient confusion, fear, or anger related to the release of information. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted with an interrupted time-series analysis of UPCs spanning January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2022. The data were obtained from a single academic medical center, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, at which the IBR was implemented on January 20, 2021. Data analysis was performed from January 11 to July 15, 2023. Exposure: Implementation of the IBR on January 20, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the monthly rate of UPCs before and after IBR implementation. A qualitative analysis was performed for UPCs received after IBR implementation. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare monthly complaints between the pre- and post-IBR groups. The Pearson χ2 test was used to compare proportions of complaints by UPC category between time periods. Results: The medical center received 8495 UPCs during the study period: 3022 over 12 months before and 5473 over 18 months after institutional IBR implementation. There was no difference in the monthly proportions of UPCs per 1000 patient encounters before (median, 0.81 [IQR, 0.75-0.88]) and after (median, 0.83 [IQR, 0.77-0.89]) IBR implementation (difference in medians, -0.02 [95% CI, -0.12 to 0.07]; P =.86). Segmented regression analysis revealed no difference in monthly UPCs (β [SE], 0.03 [0.09]; P =.72). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, implementation of the Cures Act IBR was not associated with an increase in monthly rates of UPCs. These findings suggest that review of UPCs identified as IBR-specific complaints may allow clinicians and organizations to prepare patients that their test and procedure results may be available before clinicians are able to review them and respond.

Indexed as

PhysiciansCohort StudiesHumansInterrupted Time Series AnalysisRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37773508
PMCPMC10543134
OpenAlexW4387167647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.