ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Sisyphus' Alert: The Uphill Struggle to Improve Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Clinical Decision Support.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chemoprophylaxis reduces the risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE), but is not reliably ordered. Our institution created a clinical decision support (CDS) interruptive alert to remind clinicians to order VTE chemoprophylaxis when it is missing for qualifying inpatients. Unfortunately, this alert has required repeated modifications to ensure accurate logic, and continues to generate negative feedback from users.This study aimed to describe multiple failures in the development and postdeployment optimization of this interruptive alert, and our lessons learned.This study analyzed the number of times this alert fired over 6 months of testing and 16 months of deployment, and changes in either the frequency of alert firing or the frequency of the alert being dismissed without orders placed with iterative changes in the alert logic. Feedback about this alert was compiled and classified into common themes.The initial alert fired an average of 11,154 times per week when tested silently, prompting significant refinements before release. The alert shown to users fired an average of 53.8 times per 1,000 patient days in the first 6 months of the study period. Despite postlaunch improvements, this rose to 61 alerts per 1,000 patient days in the final 6 months of the study. Modifications also did not cause a significant decrease in how frequently the alert was dismissed without further action being taken (88%). Review of narrative feedback and its classification highlights "wrong person" receiving the alert being by far the most prevalent cause for negative submitted user feedback (nearly 50%), despite efforts to develop logic that limits firing to the patient's primary team.Changes to this VTE alert were summarized as failures to meet the "five rights" of CDS. Alerts for high-priority safety issues require persistent feedback-driven improvement, particularly when there is poor performance or negative user experience.
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.