ArticleApplied clinical informatics2022
Providers Electing to Receive Electronic Result Notifications: Demographics and Motivation.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated electronic result notifications can alert health care providers of important clinical results. In contrast to historical notification systems, which were predominantly focused on critical laboratory abnormalities and often not very customizable, modern electronic health records provide capabilities for subscription-based electronic notification. This capability has not been well studied.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of when and how a provider decides to use a subscription-based electronic notification. Better appreciation for the factors that contribute to selecting such notifications could aid in improving the functionality of these tools.
methodsWe performed an 8-month quantitative assessment of 3,291 notifications and a qualitative survey assessment of 73 providers who utilized an elective notification tool in our electronic health record.
resultsWe found that most notifications were requested by attending physicians (∼60%) and from internal medicine specialty (∼25%). Most providers requested only a few notifications while a small minority (nearly 5%) requested 10 or more in the study period. The majority (nearly 30%) of requests were for chemistry laboratories. Survey respondents reported using the tool predominantly for important or time-sensitive laboratories. Overall opinions of the tool were positive (median = 7 out of 10, 95% confidence interval: 6-9), with 40% of eligible respondents reporting the tool improved quality of care. Reported examples included time to result review, monitoring of heparin drips, and reviewing pathology results.
conclusionDeveloping an understanding for when and how providers decide to be notified of clinical results can help aid in the design and improvement of clinical tools, such as improved elective notifications. These tools may lead to reduced time to result review which could in turn improve clinical care quality.
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.