Pierre Elias1, Eric Peterson2, Bob Wachter3, Cary Ward2, Eric Poon4, Ann Marie Navar2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, New York, United States. 2. Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States. 3. Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, California, United States. 4. Duke Health Technology Solutions, Duke University School of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health systems often employ interruptive alerts through the electronic health record to improve patient care. However, concerns of "alert fatigue" have been raised, highlighting the importance of understanding the time burden and impact of these alerts on providers. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to determine the total time providers spent on interruptive alerts in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Our secondary objectives were to analyze dwell time for individual alerts and examine both provider and alert-related factors associated with dwell time variance. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated use and response to the 75 most common interruptive ("popup") alerts between June 1st, 2015 and November 1st, 2016 in a large academic health care system. Alert "dwell time" was calculated as the time between the alert appearing on a provider's screen until it was closed. The total number of alerts and dwell times per provider per month was calculated for inpatient and outpatient alerts and compared across alert type. RESULTS: The median number of alerts seen by a provider was 12 per month (IQR 4-34). Overall, 67% of inpatient and 39% of outpatient alerts were closed in under 3 seconds. Alerts related to patient safety and those requiring more than a single click to proceed had significantly longer median dwell times of 5.2 and 6.7 seconds, respectively. The median total monthly time spent by providers viewing alerts was 49 seconds on inpatient alerts and 28 seconds on outpatient alerts. CONCLUSION: Most alerts were closed in under 3 seconds and a provider's total time spent on alerts was less than 1 min/mo. Alert fatigue may lie in their interruptive and noncritical nature rather than time burden. Monitoring alert interaction time can function as a valuable metric to assess the impact of alerts on workflow and potentially identify routinely ignored alerts. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND: Health systems often employ interruptive alerts through the electronic health record to improve patient care. However, concerns of "alert fatigue" have been raised, highlighting the importance of understanding the time burden and impact of these alerts on providers. OBJECTIVES: Our main objective was to determine the total time providers spent on interruptive alerts in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Our secondary objectives were to analyze dwell time for individual alerts and examine both provider and alert-related factors associated with dwell time variance. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated use and response to the 75 most common interruptive ("popup") alerts between June 1st, 2015 and November 1st, 2016 in a large academic health care system. Alert "dwell time" was calculated as the time between the alert appearing on a provider's screen until it was closed. The total number of alerts and dwell times per provider per month was calculated for inpatient and outpatient alerts and compared across alert type. RESULTS: The median number of alerts seen by a provider was 12 per month (IQR 4-34). Overall, 67% of inpatient and 39% of outpatient alerts were closed in under 3 seconds. Alerts related to patient safety and those requiring more than a single click to proceed had significantly longer median dwell times of 5.2 and 6.7 seconds, respectively. The median total monthly time spent by providers viewing alerts was 49 seconds on inpatient alerts and 28 seconds on outpatient alerts. CONCLUSION: Most alerts were closed in under 3 seconds and a provider's total time spent on alerts was less than 1 min/mo. Alert fatigue may lie in their interruptive and noncritical nature rather than time burden. Monitoring alert interaction time can function as a valuable metric to assess the impact of alerts on workflow and potentially identify routinely ignored alerts. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Robert B McDaniel; Jonathan D Burlison; Donald K Baker; Murad Hasan; Jennifer Robertson; Christine Hartford; Scott C Howard; Andras Sablauer; James M Hoffman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-10-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Judith W Dexheimer; Eric S Kirkendall; Michal Kouril; Philip A Hagedorn; Thomas Minich; Leo L Duan; Monifa Mahdi; Rhonda Szczesniak; S Andrew Spooner Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Daniel R Murphy; Ashley N D Meyer; Elise Russo; Dean F Sittig; Li Wei; Hardeep Singh Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Gilad J Kuperman; Anne Bobb; Thomas H Payne; Anthony J Avery; Tejal K Gandhi; Gerard Burns; David C Classen; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Karen C Nanji; Sarah P Slight; Diane L Seger; Insook Cho; Julie M Fiskio; Lisa M Redden; Lynn A Volk; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sarah P Slight; Diane L Seger; Karen C Nanji; Insook Cho; Nivethietha Maniam; Patricia C Dykes; David W Bates Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Juan D Chaparro; Jonathan M Beus; Adam C Dziorny; Philip A Hagedorn; Sean Hernandez; Swaminathan Kandaswamy; Eric S Kirkendall; Allison B McCoy; Naveen Muthu; Evan W Orenstein Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-25 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Lipika Samal; John D D'Amore; Michael P Gannon; John L Kilgallon; Jean-Pierre Charles; Devin M Mann; Lydia C Siegel; Kelly Burdge; Shimon Shaykevich; Stuart Lipsitz; Sushrut S Waikar; David W Bates; Adam Wright Journal: Kidney Med Date: 2022-05-28
Authors: Denise J van der Nat; Victor J B Huiskes; Aatke van der Maas; Judith Y M N Derijks-Engwegen; Hein A W van Onzenoort; Bart J F van den Bemt Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-05 Impact factor: 2.908