ArticleApplied clinical informatics2026
Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract:
backgroundAlthough interruptive alerts, or pop-ups, are one of the most common forms of clinical decision support (CDS) tools within the electronic health record (EHR), they are often ignored. Interruptive alerts have the potential to enhance patient care and reduce clinician burden, but end-users frequently experience alert fatigue and override alerts, defeating their purpose. Few studies have elicited the perspectives of all stakeholder groups involved in the development, experience, and review of inpatient interruptive alerts in the modern vendor EHR era. Abstract:
objectivesThis study aimed to understand the perspectives of multiple stakeholders involved in development, governance, and use of inpatient interruptive alerts. Abstract:
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 22 participants, including 15 end-users, 4 governance group members, 2 clinical leads, and 1 information systems staff member. The semi-structured interview guides were designed to explore different participant perspectives on interruptive alerts. Abstract:
resultsWe found three domains across end-users related to interruptive alert helpfulness, proportionality, and alarm fatigue. We found three domains across the governance, clinical lead, and information system groups about the causes of high-volume and high-sensitivity interruptive alerts, differing definitions of interruptive alert success from end-users, and reluctance to add new interruptive alerts but limited changes or retirement of existing interruptive alerts. Barriers to successful CDS could be grouped into end-user, technical, and governance-level barriers. We found one governance-level facilitator and gathered several recommendations for CDS improvement from all stakeholder groups, including changing alert "interruptiveness," customizability, design, responsiveness, and involving end-users in alert analysis. Abstract:
conclusionThis study highlights the need for robust, user-centered alerts and CDS development and evaluation to improve clinician experiences and potentially patient outcomes.
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.