Sarah L Cutrona1,2,3,4, Hassan Fouayzi5,6, Laura Burns5, Rajani S Sadasivam6, Kathleen M Mazor5,6, Jerry H Gurwitz5,6,7, Lawrence Garber5,7, Devi Sundaresan5,7, Thomas K Houston8,6, Terry S Field5,6. 1. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA. Sarah.Cutrona@umassmed.edu. 2. Quantitative Health Sciences and Medicine, Division of Health Informatics and Implementation Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Sarah.Cutrona@umassmed.edu. 3. Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health Worcester, Worcester, MA, USA. Sarah.Cutrona@umassmed.edu. 4. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Sarah.Cutrona@umassmed.edu. 5. Meyers Primary Care Institute, a joint endeavor of University of Massachusetts Medical School, Reliant Medical Group, and Fallon Health Worcester, Worcester, MA, USA. 6. University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. 7. Reliant Medical Group, Worcester, MA, USA. 8. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Time-sensitive alerts are among the many types of clinical notifications delivered to physicians' secure InBaskets within commercial electronic health records (EHRs). A delayed alert review can impact patient safety and compromise care. OBJECTIVE: To characterize factors associated with opening of non-interruptive time-sensitive alerts delivered into primary care provider (PCP) InBaskets. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data for 799 automated alerts. Alerts highlighted actionable medication concerns for older patients post-hospital discharge (2010-2011). These were study-generated alerts sent 3 days post-discharge to InBaskets for 75 PCPs across a multisite healthcare system, and represent a subset of all urgent InBasket notifications. MAIN MEASURES: Using EHR access and audit logs to track alert opening, we performed bivariate and multivariate analyses calculating associations between patient characteristics, provider characteristics, contextual factors at the time of alert delivery (number of InBasket notifications, weekday), and alert opening within 24 h. KEY RESULTS: At the time of alert delivery, the PCPs had a median of 69 InBasket notifications and had received a median of 379.8 notifications (IQR 295.0, 492.0) over the prior 7 days. Of the 799 alerts, 47.1% were opened within 24 h. Patients with longer hospital stays (>4 days) were marginally more likely to have alerts opened (OR 1.48 [95% CI 1.00-2.19]). Alerts delivered to PCPs whose InBaskets had a higher number of notifications at the time of alert delivery were significantly less likely to be opened within 24 h (top quartile >157 notifications: OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18-0.61]; reference bottom quartile ≤42). Alerts delivered on Saturdays were also less likely to be opened within 24 h (OR 0.18 [CI 0.08-0.39]). CONCLUSIONS: The number of total InBasket notifications and weekend delivery may impact the opening of time-sensitive EHR alerts. Further study is needed to support safe and effective approaches to care team management of InBasket notifications.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Time-sensitive alerts are among the many types of clinical notifications delivered to physicians' secure InBaskets within commercial electronic health records (EHRs). A delayed alert review can impact patient safety and compromise care. OBJECTIVE: To characterize factors associated with opening of non-interruptive time-sensitive alerts delivered into primary care provider (PCP) InBaskets. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed data for 799 automated alerts. Alerts highlighted actionable medication concerns for older patients post-hospital discharge (2010-2011). These were study-generated alerts sent 3 days post-discharge to InBaskets for 75 PCPs across a multisite healthcare system, and represent a subset of all urgent InBasket notifications. MAIN MEASURES: Using EHR access and audit logs to track alert opening, we performed bivariate and multivariate analyses calculating associations between patient characteristics, provider characteristics, contextual factors at the time of alert delivery (number of InBasket notifications, weekday), and alert opening within 24 h. KEY RESULTS: At the time of alert delivery, the PCPs had a median of 69 InBasket notifications and had received a median of 379.8 notifications (IQR 295.0, 492.0) over the prior 7 days. Of the 799 alerts, 47.1% were opened within 24 h. Patients with longer hospital stays (>4 days) were marginally more likely to have alerts opened (OR 1.48 [95% CI 1.00-2.19]). Alerts delivered to PCPs whose InBaskets had a higher number of notifications at the time of alert delivery were significantly less likely to be opened within 24 h (top quartile >157 notifications: OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.18-0.61]; reference bottom quartile ≤42). Alerts delivered on Saturdays were also less likely to be opened within 24 h (OR 0.18 [CI 0.08-0.39]). CONCLUSIONS: The number of total InBasket notifications and weekend delivery may impact the opening of time-sensitive EHR alerts. Further study is needed to support safe and effective approaches to care team management of InBasket notifications.
Entities:
Keywords:
electronic health records; health information technology; health services research; healthcare communication
Authors: James E Gray; Henry Feldman; Shane Reti; Larry Markson; Xiaoning Lu; Roger B Davis; Charles A Safran Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2011-10-22
Authors: Jennifer Tjia; Terry S Field; Lawrence D Garber; Jennifer L Donovan; Abir O Kanaan; Marsha A Raebel; Yanfang Zhao; Jacquelyne C Fuller; Shawn J Gagne; Shira H Fischer; Jerry H Gurwitz Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Sylvia J Hysong; Mona K Sawhney; Lindsay Wilson; Dean F Sittig; Donna Espadas; Traber Davis; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: J Feblowitz; S Henkin; J Pang; H Ramelson; L Schneider; F L Maloney; A R Wilcox; D W Bates; A Wright Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2013-03-27 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Christine Sinsky; Lacey Colligan; Ling Li; Mirela Prgomet; Sam Reynolds; Lindsey Goeders; Johanna Westbrook; Michael Tutty; George Blike Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-09-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Tyler Satterly; Traber D Giardina; Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Adam Schaffer; Esteban F Gershanik; Ranganath Papanna; Katyuska Eibensteiner; Nyryan V Nolido; Cathy S Yoon; Deborah Williams; Stuart R Lipsitz; Christopher L Roy; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Azraa Amroze; Terry S Field; Hassan Fouayzi; Devi Sundaresan; Laura Burns; Lawrence Garber; Rajani S Sadasivam; Kathleen M Mazor; Jerry H Gurwitz; Sarah L Cutrona Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2019-02-07
Authors: Jessica G Wijesundara; Mayuko Ito Fukunaga; Jessica Ogarek; Bruce Barton; Lloyd Fisher; Peggy Preusse; Devi Sundaresan; Lawrence Garber; Kathleen M Mazor; Sarah L Cutrona Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 5.428