ArticleJAMIA open2025
Case Report: A health system's experience using clinical decision support to promote note sharing after the 21st Century Cures Act.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We used clinical decision support (CDS) to promote compliance with the 21st Century Cures Act's mandate that, with few exceptions, patients be granted timely access to their clinical notes. Materials and Methods: We conducted an observational analysis of note sharing rates in a large regional health system from February 2, 2021 to October 3, 2023. Throughout the study period, notes were shared with patients by default with the option not to grant note access; starting week 10, clinicians not sharing notes were presented with "hard-stop" CDS requiring selection of an allowable exception reason. Trends were examined with forward step-segmented linear regression. Results: 0.7% of all notes were unshared; rates of unshared notes were highest in pediatrics (4.9%) and psychiatry (2.2%). Rates dropped substantially following hard-stop CDS introduction (downward step of 0.96%; 95% CI -1.17 to -0.024). Despite high portal access (72.6%), few notes were viewed by patients/proxies (17.0%). Discussion: We found very low overall rates of unshared notes; the significant drop in the rates of unshared notes following the introduction of hard-stop CDS is consistent with prior research showing that hard-stop CDS can be an effective tool. The higher rates of unshared notes in pediatrics and psychiatry likely reflect considerations around sensitive information that are inherent to these fields. Conclusions: CDS effectively promoted note sharing, but patient engagement remained low.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.