ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Redesigning Clinical Decision Support for Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening After Alert Failure.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is the leading cause of preventable childhood blindness. Guidelines recommend screening for infants with gestational age at birth <31 weeks or birth weight ≤1,500 g. However, ensuring timely screening during readmissions after birth is challenging.To analyze the performance of an interruptive alert at a large academic pediatric hospital for identifying premature infants needing ROP screening upon hospital readmission and to describe how data informed the transition to a non-interruptive dashboard.The alert appeared for patients 1 to 365 days of age hospitalized in acute care or pediatric intensive care and instructed providers to order an ophthalmology consult from within the alert and to call ophthalmology for at-risk patients. For quality improvement, the clinical decision support (CDS) advisory group evaluated the effectiveness and efficiency of the alert. We extracted alert metrics from the hospital's enterprise data warehouse, including the user response and feedback, patient characteristics (age, birth gestational age, and birth weight), and any ophthalmology consultations. We analyzed the percentage of encounters seen by ophthalmology using a statistical process control chart during alert implementation and 6 months before and after.The alert appeared 3,309 times during 2,194 patient encounters usually. Users chose "Accept and place order" for 43% (943/2,194) of encounters, but only 11% (102/943) had an ophthalmology consult; 34% (53/155) of ophthalmology consultations occurred in encounters with a final response other than "Accept and place order." The intervention was redesigned using a non-interruptive surveillance dashboard with greater specificity, and the alert was de-implemented.Analysis of a failed interruptive alert for identifying patients at risk for ROP led to a transition to targeted surveillance using a dashboard. This case emphasizes the importance of aligning the CDS modality to the clinical workflow, information availability, and user decision-making needs and should be supported by governance.
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.