OBJECTIVE: Interruptive alerts within electronic applications can cause "alert fatigue" if they fire too frequently or are clinically reasonable only some of the time. We assessed the impact of non-interruptive, real-time medication laboratory alerts on provider lab test ordering. DESIGN: We enrolled 22 outpatient practices into a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Clinics either used the existing system or received on-screen recommendations for baseline laboratory tests when prescribing new medications. Since the warnings were non-interruptive, providers did not have to act upon or acknowledge the notification to complete a medication request. MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected each time providers performed suggested laboratory testing within 14 days of a new prescription order. Findings were adjusted for patient and provider characteristics as well as patient clustering within clinics. RESULTS: Among 12 clinics with 191 providers in the control group and 10 clinics with 175 providers in the intervention group, there were 3673 total events where baseline lab tests would have been advised: 1988 events in the control group and 1685 in the intervention group. In the control group, baseline labs were requested for 771 (39%) of the medications. In the intervention group, baseline labs were ordered by clinicians in 689 (41%) of the cases. Overall, no significant association existed between the intervention and the rate of ordering appropriate baseline laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: We found that non-interruptive medication laboratory monitoring alerts were not effective in improving receipt of recommended baseline laboratory test monitoring for medications. Further work is necessary to optimize compliance with non-critical recommendations.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Interruptive alerts within electronic applications can cause "alert fatigue" if they fire too frequently or are clinically reasonable only some of the time. We assessed the impact of non-interruptive, real-time medication laboratory alerts on provider lab test ordering. DESIGN: We enrolled 22 outpatient practices into a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Clinics either used the existing system or received on-screen recommendations for baseline laboratory tests when prescribing new medications. Since the warnings were non-interruptive, providers did not have to act upon or acknowledge the notification to complete a medication request. MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected each time providers performed suggested laboratory testing within 14 days of a new prescription order. Findings were adjusted for patient and provider characteristics as well as patient clustering within clinics. RESULTS: Among 12 clinics with 191 providers in the control group and 10 clinics with 175 providers in the intervention group, there were 3673 total events where baseline lab tests would have been advised: 1988 events in the control group and 1685 in the intervention group. In the control group, baseline labs were requested for 771 (39%) of the medications. In the intervention group, baseline labs were ordered by clinicians in 689 (41%) of the cases. Overall, no significant association existed between the intervention and the rate of ordering appropriate baseline laboratory tests. CONCLUSION: We found that non-interruptive medication laboratory monitoring alerts were not effective in improving receipt of recommended baseline laboratory test monitoring for medications. Further work is necessary to optimize compliance with non-critical recommendations.
Authors: D W Bates; G J Kuperman; E Rittenberg; J M Teich; J Fiskio; N Ma'luf; A Onderdonk; D Wybenga; J Winkelman; T A Brennan; A L Komaroff; M Tanasijevic Journal: Am J Med Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Adrianne Feldstein; Steven R Simon; Jennifer Schneider; Michael Krall; Dan Laferriere; David H Smith; Dean F Sittig; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Saf Date: 2004-11
Authors: Nidhi R Shah; Andrew C Seger; Diane L Seger; Julie M Fiskio; Gilad J Kuperman; Barry Blumenfeld; Elaine G Recklet; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-10-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Paula A Rochon; Terry S Field; David W Bates; Monica Lee; Linda Gavendo; Janet Erramuspe-Mainard; James Judge; Jerry H Gurwitz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Marsha A Raebel; Ella E Lyons; Elizabeth A Chester; Michael A Bodily; Julia A Kelleher; Charron L Long; Chad Miller; David J Magid Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-11-14
Authors: S Trent Rosenbloom; Kou-Wei Chiu; Daniel W Byrne; Doug A Talbert; Eric G Neilson; Randolph A Miller Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-05-19 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Marsha A Raebel; Ella E Lyons; Susan E Andrade; K Arnold Chan; Elizabeth A Chester; Robert L Davis; Jennifer L Ellis; Adrianne Feldstein; Margaret J Gunter; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Charron L Long; David J Magid; Joseph V Selby; Steven R Simon; Richard Platt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: R S Evans; S L Pestotnik; D C Classen; T P Clemmer; L K Weaver; J F Orme; J F Lloyd; J P Burke Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-01-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Andrew W Steele; Sheri Eisert; Joel Witter; Pat Lyons; Michael A Jones; Patricia Gabow; Eduardo Ortiz Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2005-09-06 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Gregory P T Scott; Priya Shah; Jeremy C Wyatt; Boikanyo Makubate; Frank W Cross Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Shira H Fischer; Terry S Field; Shawn J Gagne; Kathleen M Mazor; Peggy Preusse; George Reed; Daniel Peterson; Jerry H Gurwitz; Jennifer Tjia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shira H Fischer; Jennifer Tjia; George Reed; Daniel Peterson; Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 5.128