ArticleApplied clinical informatics2017
The effect of requesting a reason for non-adherence to a guideline in a long running automated reminder system for PONV prophylaxis.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- 5-HTInternational journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025Pooled it
- The Effect of an Educational Intervention on Adherence to Intraocular Pressure-Lowering Medications in a Large Cohort of Older Adults with Glaucoma.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2018Trial
- Terminology, communication, and information systems in nonoperating room anaesthesia in the COVID-19 era.Current opinion in anaesthesiology · 2020Review
- An Electronic Medical Record-Derived Individualized Performance Metric to Measure Risk-Adjusted Adherence with Perioperative Prophylactic Bundles for Health Care Disparity Research and Implementation Science.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated reminders are employed frequently to improve guideline adherence, but limitations of automated reminders are becoming more apparent. We studied the reasons for non-adherence in the setting of automated reminders to test the hypothesis that a separate request for a reason in itself may further improve guideline adherence.
methodsIn a previously implemented automated reminder system on prophylaxis for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), we included additional automated reminders requesting a reason for non-adherence. We recorded these reasons in the pre-operative screening clinic, the OR and the PACU. We compared adherence to our PONV guideline in two study groups with a historical control group.
resultsGuideline adherence on prescribing and administering PONV prophylaxis (dexamethasone and granisetron) all improved compared to the historical control group (89 vs. 82% (p< 0.0001), 96 vs 95% (not significant) and 90 vs 82% (p<0.0001)) while decreasing unwarranted prescription for PONV prophylaxis (10 vs. 13 %). In the pre-operative screening clinic, the main reason for not prescribing PONV prophylaxis was disagreement with the risk estimate by the decision support system. In the OR/PACU, the main reasons for not administering PONV prophylaxis were: 'unintended non-adherence' and 'failure to document'.
conclusionsIn this study requesting a reason for non-adherence is associated with improved guideline adherence. The effect seems to depend on the underlying reason for non-adherence. It also illustrates the importance of human factors principles in the design of decision support. Some reasons for non-adherence may not be influenced by automated reminders.
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.