Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31777057›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2019

Evaluating the Impact of Interruptive Alerts within a Health System: Use, Response Time, and Cumulative Time Burden.

Pierre Elias, Eric Peterson, Bob Wachter, Cary Ward, Eric Poon, Ann Marie Navar

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Clinical Informatics in Critical Care Medicine.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Associations of physicians' prescribing experience, work hours, and workload with prescription errors.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021
    Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Pierre EliasDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States.
Eric PetersonDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Bob WachterDepartment of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States.
Cary WardDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Eric PoonDuke Health Technology Solutions, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Ann Marie NavarDuke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Clinical Research Institute · USColumbia University · USDuke University · USDuke University Health System · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth systems often employ interruptive alerts through the electronic health record to improve patient care. However, concerns of "alert fatigue" have been raised, highlighting the importance of understanding the time burden and impact of these alerts on providers.

objectivesOur main objective was to determine the total time providers spent on interruptive alerts in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Our secondary objectives were to analyze dwell time for individual alerts and examine both provider and alert-related factors associated with dwell time variance.

methodsWe retrospectively evaluated use and response to the 75 most common interruptive ("popup") alerts between June 1st, 2015 and November 1st, 2016 in a large academic health care system. Alert "dwell time" was calculated as the time between the alert appearing on a provider's screen until it was closed. The total number of alerts and dwell times per provider per month was calculated for inpatient and outpatient alerts and compared across alert type.

resultsThe median number of alerts seen by a provider was 12 per month (IQR 4-34). Overall, 67% of inpatient and 39% of outpatient alerts were closed in under 3 seconds. Alerts related to patient safety and those requiring more than a single click to proceed had significantly longer median dwell times of 5.2 and 6.7 seconds, respectively. The median total monthly time spent by providers viewing alerts was 49 seconds on inpatient alerts and 28 seconds on outpatient alerts.

conclusionMost alerts were closed in under 3 seconds and a provider's total time spent on alerts was less than 1 min/mo. Alert fatigue may lie in their interruptive and noncritical nature rather than time burden. Monitoring alert interaction time can function as a valuable metric to assess the impact of alerts on workflow and potentially identify routinely ignored alerts.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHealth PersonnelHumansMedical Order Entry SystemsTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID31777057
PMCPMC6881214
OpenAlexW2991215871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.