ArticleApplied clinical informatics2011
Effect of a laboratory result pager on provider behavior in a neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Providers Electing to Receive Electronic Result Notifications: Demographics and Motivation.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Applied Clinical Informatics Journal: A Brief History.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Using telephony data to facilitate discovery of clinical workflows.Applied clinical informatics · 2017Article
- The Chief Clinical Informatics Officer (CCIO): AMIA Task Force Report on CCIO Knowledge, Education, and Skillset Requirements.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA computerized laboratory result paging system (LRPS) that alerts providers about abnormal results ("push") may improve upon active laboratory result review ("pull"). However, implementing such a system in the intensive care setting may be hindered by low signal-to-noise ratio, which may lead to alert fatigue.
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of an LRPS in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.
methodsUtilizing paper chart review, we tallied provider orders following an abnormal laboratory result before and after implementation of an LRPS. Orders were compared with a predefined set of appropriate orders for such an abnormal result. The likelihood of a provider response in the post-implementation period as compared to the pre-implementation period was analyzed using logistic regression. The provider responses were analyzed using logistic regression to control for potential confounders.
resultsThe likelihood of a provider response to an abnormal laboratory result did not change significantly after implementation of an LRPS. (Odds Ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, p-value 0.58) However, when providers did respond to an alert, the type of response was different. The proportion of repeat laboratory tests increased. (26/378 vs. 7/278, p-value = 0.02).
conclusionAlthough the laboratory result pager altered healthcare provider behavior in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, it did not increase the overall likelihood of provider response.
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.