Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41561953›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

Evaluation of sepsis CDS tool knowledge and utilization among graduate medical trainees: insights to inform redesign in an academic health system.

Shadi Hijjawi, Paddy Ssentongo

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shadi HijjawiDepartment of Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, United States.
Paddy SsentongoDivision of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, PA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early recognition and treatment of sepsis is critical to reducing mortality. Many hospitals have adopted Electronic Health Record (EHR)-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools to assist with timely identification and management of sepsis. However, over-alerting and poor integration into clinician workflow may limit their effectiveness. Objective: To assess medical trainees' awareness, usage, and perceptions of two EHR-integrated sepsis CDS tools-a sepsis alert and sepsis advisor-at a tertiary academic hospital to inform future system-wide sepsis workflows redesign. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 673 residents and fellows at Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in March 2022. The anonymous survey explored familiarity with sepsis tools, usage patterns, perceived usefulness, and suggestions for improvement. Results: Ninety-two trainees responded (13.7% response rate). Among 80 who recognized the sepsis alert, only 11.3% had used the advisor. Alert fatigue (62.5%) and limited clinical utility (46.3%) were major concerns. Only 16.3% felt both tools were helpful, while 52.5% found them unhelpful. Lack of awareness about advisor features and alert suppression mechanisms further limited engagement. Respondents who found the tools unhelpful recommended a non-interruptive, asynchronous alert format, a "patient already being treated" option, and redesigning the advisor into a streamlined, workflow-aligned tool. Conclusion: While sepsis CDS tools offer potential for improving care, their impact is limited by knowledge gaps, usability issues, alert fatigue, and poor clinical fit. Addressing these issues through better design, education, and workflow integration-guided by frontline user input-should be a core strategy in CDS quality improvement efforts.

Indexed as

alert fatigueclinical decision supportmedical educationsepsisworkflow integration

Identifiers

PMID41561953
PMCPMC12812634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.