ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2019
Interrupting providers with clinical decision support to improve care for heart failure.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02858674 (Health Information Technology in Heart Failure Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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.
Health Information Technology in Heart Failure Care
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Conceptualizing clinical decision support as complex interventions: a meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness trials.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Pooled it
- Do providers use computerized clinical decision support systems? A systematic review and meta-regression of clinical decision support uptake.Implementation science : IS · 2022Pooled it
- Cluster-Randomized Trial Comparing Ambulatory Decision Support Tools to Improve Heart Failure Care.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2023Trial
- Interruptive Electronic Alerts for Choosing Wisely Recommendations: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Trial
- Barriers to Optimization of Medical Therapy and the Role of Checklist-Based Decision Support in Heart Failure.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Application of Nudges to Design Clinical Decision Support Tools: Systematic Approach Guided by Implementation Science.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Transitioning Ineffective Medications on Hold Alert from Interruptive to Noninterruptive Alert to Decrease Alert Burden.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Association of Palliative Care Consultation in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction With Symptom Burden and Health Care Use.JACC. Advances · 2025Article
- Randomized Comparison of Electronic Health Record Alert Types in Eliciting Responses about Prognosis in Gynecologic Oncology Patients.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Sustained Effect of Clinical Decision Support for Heart Failure: A Natural Experiment Using Implementation Science.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Electronic Health Record Embedded Strategies for Improving Care of Patients With Heart Failure.Current heart failure reports · 2023Review
- Design and pilot implementation for the BETTER CARE-HF trial: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing two targeted approaches to ambulatory clinical decision support for cardiologists.American heart journal · 2023Article
- An alert tool to promote lung protective ventilation for possible acute respiratory distress syndrome.JAMIA open · 2022Article
- Electronic Health Records and Heart Failure.Heart failure clinics · 2022Review
- Nudging within learning health systems: next generation decision support to improve cardiovascular care.European heart journal · 2022Article
- Alerts in Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS): A Bibliometric Review and Content Analysis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration.The mental health clinician · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Human Factors Considerations in Transitions in Care Clinical Decision Support System Implementation Studies.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions.
objectivesTo compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure.
methodsHospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS.
resultsOf 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25
conclusionsA CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02858674.
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.