Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34664664›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2021

Alert burden in pediatric hospitals: a cross-sectional analysis of six academic pediatric health systems using novel metrics.

Evan W Orenstein, Swaminathan Kandaswamy, Naveen Muthu, Juan D Chaparro, Philip A Hagedorn, Adam C Dziorny, Adam Moses, Sean Hernandez, Amina Khan, Hannah B Huth and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2021. 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Guidance for reporting analyses of metadata on electronic health record use.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

12 authors.

Evan W OrensteinDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3756-8575
Swaminathan KandaswamyDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Naveen MuthuDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Juan D ChaparroDivision of Clinical Informatics, Nationwide Children's Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Philip A HagedornDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Adam C DziornyDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3392-2795
Adam MosesCenter for Healthcare Innovation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Sean HernandezCenter for Healthcare Innovation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Amina KhanDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Hannah B HuthCenter for Healthcare Innovation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Jonathan M BeusDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0911-0823
Eric S KirkendallCenter for Healthcare Innovation, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExcessive electronic health record (EHR) alerts reduce the salience of actionable alerts. Little is known about the frequency of interruptive alerts across health systems and how the choice of metric affects which users appear to have the highest alert burden.

objective(1) Analyze alert burden by alert type, care setting, provider type, and individual provider across 6 pediatric health systems. (2) Compare alert burden using different metrics. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed interruptive alert firings logged in EHR databases at 6 pediatric health systems from 2016-2019 using 4 metrics: (1) alerts per patient encounter, (2) alerts per inpatient-day, (3) alerts per 100 orders, and (4) alerts per unique clinician days (calendar days with at least 1 EHR log in the system). We assessed intra- and interinstitutional variation and how alert burden rankings differed based on the chosen metric.

resultsAlert burden varied widely across institutions, ranging from 0.06 to 0.76 firings per encounter, 0.22 to 1.06 firings per inpatient-day, 0.98 to 17.42 per 100 orders, and 0.08 to 3.34 firings per clinician day logged in the EHR. Custom alerts accounted for the greatest burden at all 6 sites. The rank order of institutions by alert burden was similar regardless of which alert burden metric was chosen. Within institutions, the alert burden metric choice substantially affected which provider types and care settings appeared to experience the highest alert burden.

conclusionEstimates of the clinical areas with highest alert burden varied substantially by institution and based on the metric used.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalMedical Order Entry SystemsBenchmarkingChildCross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsHospitals, PediatricHumansalert fatiguebenchmarkingclinical burnoutdecision support systemselectronic health recordshealth personnelprofessional

Identifiers

PMID34664664
PMCPMC8633657

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.