Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41385223›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2025

Uptake of Generative AI Integrated With Electronic Health Records in US Hospitals.

Jordan Everson, Paige Nong, Chelsea Richwine

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jordan EversonOffice of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
Paige NongDivision of Health Policy & Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis.
Chelsea RichwineOffice of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy, US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: There is widespread enthusiasm about generative artificial intelligence (AI), but no systematic evidence on its implementation across health care organizations. Objective: To describe adoption of generative AI integrated with the electronic health record (EHR) by nonfederal acute care hospitals, how adoption relates to experience using and evaluating predictive AI, and hospital characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study of nonfederal acute care US hospitals used the 2024 American Hospital Association (AHA) Information Technology (IT) Supplement survey. The survey was completed by individuals most knowledgeable about health IT at the participating hospitals. Exposures: Experience with predictive AI, source of predictive AI, local evaluation practices (evaluation for accuracy and bias as well as postdeployment evaluation), and EHR developer were collected from the 2024 AHA IT Supplement. Hospital characteristics, including critical access hospital status, multihospital system membership, and teaching status, were collected from the 2024 AHA Annual Survey. Hospital operating margins, uncompensated care burden, and percentage of discharges from Medicaid were collected from the 2022 Medicare Cost Report. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether the hospital was an early adopter of generative AI integrated with their EHR (currently used generative AI), fast follower (planned to use in the next year), or delayed adopter (planned to use in 5 years, no plans, or do not know). Results: A total of 2174 hospitals (1003 [weighted percentage, 50.4%] small; 1382 [weighted percentage, 60.8%] urban core-based; 1668 [weighted percentage, 68.8%] part of a multihospital system) responded to questions about their use of AI (51.5% response rate). Overall, 762 hospitals (weighted percentage, 31.5%) were early adopters of generative AI in 2024, 540 (weighted percentage, 24.7%) were fast followers, and 872 (weighted percentage, 43.7%) were delayed adopters. In unadjusted analyses, independent hospitals and critical access hospitals were less likely to be either early adopters or fast followers than delayed adopters. In adjusted analyses, hospitals that used predictive AI were more likely to be early adopters or fast followers than delayed adopters (difference, 26.2 [95% CI, 16.8-35.6] percentage points). Users of Epic were more likely to be early adopters and fast followers than users of other EHRs (eg, likelihood of being an early adopter or fast follower, Epic vs Oracle users: 21.9 [95% CI, 16.3-27.4] percentage points). Hospitals that reported conducting all local evaluation practices (accuracy, bias, postdeployment) were slower to adopt than hospitals that reported only 1 evaluation practice (all local evaluation processes: 12.1 [95% CI, 4.5-19.6] percentage points less likely to be early adopters than fast followers). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of US hospitals, more than half of US hospitals reported that they would likely implement generative AI by the end of 2025. Results indicate the value of providing support to ensure hospitals can adopt beneficial generative AI and the need for developing and disseminating best practices for generative AI evaluation across organizations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceElectronic Health RecordsHospitalsHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID41385223
PMCPMC12701511

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.