OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To identify areas of variation in primary care clinician responses to secure messaging and to assess the quality of secure messages by clinicians. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: This mixed-methods study included twenty one primary care clinicians from a Midwestern safety net hospital and Veterans Affairs medical center. Participants were presented with five short clinical vignettes and corresponding secure messages from hypothetical patients and asked to compose responses. Participants were interviewed about their cognitive approach to the responses as well as perspectives on quality of care as related to electronic communications. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Every participant recalled having patients who misused secure messaging for urgent issues, suggesting the need for more patient education and the possible adverse consequences of overlooked messages. The study also uncovered key differences in several areas, include clinician timeliness, message management, the circumstances in which they would use messaging, and the content of the messages (including patient-centeredness). While participants agreed that messages about clinical issues should not be resolved via secure messaging, there was a lack of consensus regarding emotionally charged messages and messages dealing with medication adjustments. Some participants spoke of the need for more guidance in knowing when best to use secure messaging. “Sometimes,” one physician said, “it feels like we’re just making up [rules for secure messaging].” Although clinician responses were uniformly respectful, the patient-centeredness varied in the use of jargon and social talk, as well as clarity for patients. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: This study revealed variations in provider approaches to secure messaging, and the content of responses. These variations reflect lack of consensus about how care is delivered via secure messaging, and reveal the need for clinician guidance. They also suggest possible negative patient consequences if secure messaging is used ineffectively. The extent to which variations are undesirable remains unknown. Future work will explore the consequences of such variations.