Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30994460›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2019

Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study.

Saul Blecker, Rishi Pandya, Susan Stork, Devin Mann, Gilad Kuperman, Donna Shelley, Jonathan S Austrian

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Interruptive Electronic Alerts for Choosing Wisely Recommendations: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Saul BleckerDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4460-1046
Rishi PandyaDepartment of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7771-6483
Susan StorkDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9663-0231
Devin MannDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2099-0852
Gilad KupermanMemorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4130-1577
Donna ShelleyDepartment of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1677-2577
Jonathan S AustrianDepartment of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0016-4705
New York University · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI SELWYN M VICKERS · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
AHRQ HHS K08 HS023683NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care, but its impact is often diminished because of issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Noninterruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue, but there has been little assessment of its usability.

objectiveThis study aimed to study the usability of interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS.

methodsWe conducted a usability study of a CDS tool that recommended prescribing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for inpatients with heart failure. We developed 2 versions of the CDS: an interruptive alert triggered at order entry and a noninterruptive alert listed in the sidebar of the electronic health record screen. Inpatient providers were recruited and randomly assigned to use the interruptive alert followed by the noninterruptive alert or vice versa in a laboratory setting. We asked providers to "think aloud" while using the CDS and then conducted a brief semistructured interview about usability. We used a constant comparative analysis informed by the CDS Five Rights framework to analyze usability testing.

resultsA total of 12 providers participated in usability testing. Providers noted that the interruptive alert was readily noticed but generally impeded workflow. The noninterruptive alert was felt to be less annoying but had lower visibility, which might reduce engagement. Provider role seemed to influence preferences; for instance, some providers who had more global responsibility for patients seemed to prefer the noninterruptive alert, whereas more task-oriented providers generally preferred the interruptive alert.

conclusionsProviders expressed trade-offs between impeding workflow and improving visibility with interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. In addition, 2 potential approaches to effective CDS may include targeting alerts by provider role or supplementing a noninterruptive alert with an occasional, well-timed interruptive alert.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportelectronic health recordshospital

Identifiers

PMID30994460
PMCPMC6492060
OpenAlexW2937218478

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.