ArticleJAMIA open2023
Push notifications for critical labs results: a pilot study in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Article in JAMIA open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications and challenges of biomarker-based predictive models in proactive health management.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Visualization of Critical Limits and Critical Values Facilitates Interpretation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: We developed a push notification allowing for an electronic acknowledgment of critical lab results to providers in the intensive care unit. Materials and Methods: This project was conducted over a 3-month period at a large academic safety net hospital. A push notification and acknowledgment system were created to comply with the existing critical results notification requirements. We monitored the number of acknowledged results, time to acknowledgment, and lab type. Results: Prior to the push notification, lab services paged the provider. This resulted in many critical lab results relayed to the clinician beyond the expected 10-minute window. With the push notification workflow, we found that, during the 3-month period, 82, or 5.8%, of the 1414 results were acknowledged. This represented 82 less pages/calls lab services had to make. Discussion: The push notification alert was easy to use and there was quicker results notification when acknowledged. There were limitations due to hand-offs for clinicians and some were not familiar with the mobile technology and the electronic acknowledgment. Conclusions: Although the acknowledgment rate was low, every electronic acknowledgment saved lab service technicians an average of 10 minutes compared to the existing workflow. As familiarity with the technology and workflow increases, this novel form of communication has the potential to have significant cost savings for lab services, in addition to efficiency gains for lab, clinicians, and more timely care. The integration of health information technology and push notification of critical labs should be the focus of investigation for further future research.
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.