BACKGROUND: A computerized laboratory result paging system (LRPS) that alerts providers about abnormal results ("push") may improve upon active laboratory result review ("pull"). However, implementing such a system in the intensive care setting may be hindered by low signal-to-noise ratio, which may lead to alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an LRPS in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: Utilizing paper chart review, we tallied provider orders following an abnormal laboratory result before and after implementation of an LRPS. Orders were compared with a predefined set of appropriate orders for such an abnormal result. The likelihood of a provider response in the post-implementation period as compared to the pre-implementation period was analyzed using logistic regression. The provider responses were analyzed using logistic regression to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: The likelihood of a provider response to an abnormal laboratory result did not change significantly after implementation of an LRPS. (Odds Ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, p-value 0.58) However, when providers did respond to an alert, the type of response was different. The proportion of repeat laboratory tests increased. (26/378 vs. 7/278, p-value = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although the laboratory result pager altered healthcare provider behavior in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, it did not increase the overall likelihood of provider response.
BACKGROUND: A computerized laboratory result paging system (LRPS) that alerts providers about abnormal results ("push") may improve upon active laboratory result review ("pull"). However, implementing such a system in the intensive care setting may be hindered by low signal-to-noise ratio, which may lead to alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an LRPS in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: Utilizing paper chart review, we tallied provider orders following an abnormal laboratory result before and after implementation of an LRPS. Orders were compared with a predefined set of appropriate orders for such an abnormal result. The likelihood of a provider response in the post-implementation period as compared to the pre-implementation period was analyzed using logistic regression. The provider responses were analyzed using logistic regression to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: The likelihood of a provider response to an abnormal laboratory result did not change significantly after implementation of an LRPS. (Odds Ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, p-value 0.58) However, when providers did respond to an alert, the type of response was different. The proportion of repeat laboratory tests increased. (26/378 vs. 7/278, p-value = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although the laboratory result pager altered healthcare provider behavior in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, it did not increase the overall likelihood of provider response.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical informatics applications; clinical laboratory information systems; hospital communication systems; reminder systems; time factors
Authors: Elizabeth A Wagar; Ana K Stankovic; David S Wilkinson; Molly Walsh; Rhona J Souers Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: G J Kuperman; J M Teich; M J Tanasijevic; N Ma'Luf; E Rittenberg; A Jha; J Fiskio; J Winkelman; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1999 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: G J Kuperman; D Boyle; A Jha; E Rittenberg; N Ma'Luf; M J Tanasijevic; J M Teich; J Winkelman; D W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 1998 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joseph Kannry; Patricia Sengstack; Thankam Paul Thyvalikakath; John Poikonen; Blackford Middleton; Thomas Payne; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Benjamin H Slovis; William J K Vervilles; David K Vawdrey; Jordan L Swartz; Catherine Winans; John C Kairys; Jeffrey M Riggio Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-07-13 Impact factor: 2.762