Physicians' responses to clinical decision support on an intensive care unit--comparison of four different alerting methods

A.M.J. Scheepers-Hoeks, R.J. Grouls, C. Neef, E.W. Ackerman, E.H. Korsten

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In intensive care environments, technology is omnipresent whereby ensuring constant monitoring and the administration of critical drugs to unstable patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS), with its widespread possibilities, can be a valuable tool in supporting adequate patient care. However, it is still unclear how decision support alerts should be presented to physicians and other medical staff to ensure that they are used most effectively. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of four different alert presentation methods on alert compliance after the implementation of an advanced CDSS on the intensive care unit (ICU) in our hospital. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was executed from August 2010 till December 2011, which included all patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital. The CDSS applied contained a set of thirteen locally developed clinical rules. The percentage of alert compliance was compared for four alert presentation methods: pharmacy intervention, physician alert list, electronic health record (EHR) section and pop-up alerts. Additionally, surveys were held to determine the method most preferred by users of the CDSS. RESULTS: In the study period, the CDSS generated 902 unique alerts, primarily due to drug dosing during decreased renal function and potassium disturbances. Alert compliance was highest for recommendations offered in pop-up alerts (41%, n=68/166), followed by pharmacy intervention (33%, n=80/244), the physician alert list (20%, n=40/199) and the EHR section (19%, n=55/293). The method most preferred by clinicians was pharmacy intervention, and pop-up alerts were found suitable as well if applied correctly. The physician alert list and EHR section were not considered suitable for CDSSs in the process of this study. CONCLUSION: The alert presentation method used for CDSSs is crucial for the compliance with alerts for the clinical rules and, consequently, for the efficacy of these systems. Active alerts such as pop-ups and pharmacy intervention were more effective than passive alerts, which do not automatically appear within the clinical workflow. In this pilot study, ICU clinicians also preferred pharmacy intervention and pop-up alerts. More research is required to expand these results to other departments and other hospitals, as well as to other types of CDSSs and different alert presentation methods.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)33-38
Number of pages6
JournalArtificial Intelligence in Medicine
Volume59
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sep 2013

Keywords

  • Alert presentation method
  • Clinical decision support systems
  • Intensive care
  • Medication alerts systems
  • Clinical rules
  • PRACTITIONER PERFORMANCE
  • PATIENT OUTCOMES
  • SAFETY ALERTS
  • ORDER ENTRY
  • SYSTEMS
  • IMPLEMENTATION
  • QUALITY
  • DESIGN

Cite this

Scheepers-Hoeks, A.M.J. ; Grouls, R.J. ; Neef, C. ; Ackerman, E.W. ; Korsten, E.H. / Physicians' responses to clinical decision support on an intensive care unit--comparison of four different alerting methods. In: Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 59, No. 1. pp. 33-38.
@article{2447ec1b3aff49aa83f0d65bb4e0a2e4,
title = "Physicians' responses to clinical decision support on an intensive care unit--comparison of four different alerting methods",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: In intensive care environments, technology is omnipresent whereby ensuring constant monitoring and the administration of critical drugs to unstable patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS), with its widespread possibilities, can be a valuable tool in supporting adequate patient care. However, it is still unclear how decision support alerts should be presented to physicians and other medical staff to ensure that they are used most effectively. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of four different alert presentation methods on alert compliance after the implementation of an advanced CDSS on the intensive care unit (ICU) in our hospital. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was executed from August 2010 till December 2011, which included all patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital. The CDSS applied contained a set of thirteen locally developed clinical rules. The percentage of alert compliance was compared for four alert presentation methods: pharmacy intervention, physician alert list, electronic health record (EHR) section and pop-up alerts. Additionally, surveys were held to determine the method most preferred by users of the CDSS. RESULTS: In the study period, the CDSS generated 902 unique alerts, primarily due to drug dosing during decreased renal function and potassium disturbances. Alert compliance was highest for recommendations offered in pop-up alerts (41{\%}, n=68/166), followed by pharmacy intervention (33{\%}, n=80/244), the physician alert list (20{\%}, n=40/199) and the EHR section (19{\%}, n=55/293). The method most preferred by clinicians was pharmacy intervention, and pop-up alerts were found suitable as well if applied correctly. The physician alert list and EHR section were not considered suitable for CDSSs in the process of this study. CONCLUSION: The alert presentation method used for CDSSs is crucial for the compliance with alerts for the clinical rules and, consequently, for the efficacy of these systems. Active alerts such as pop-ups and pharmacy intervention were more effective than passive alerts, which do not automatically appear within the clinical workflow. In this pilot study, ICU clinicians also preferred pharmacy intervention and pop-up alerts. More research is required to expand these results to other departments and other hospitals, as well as to other types of CDSSs and different alert presentation methods.",
keywords = "Alert presentation method, Clinical decision support systems, Intensive care, Medication alerts systems, Clinical rules, PRACTITIONER PERFORMANCE, PATIENT OUTCOMES, SAFETY ALERTS, ORDER ENTRY, SYSTEMS, IMPLEMENTATION, QUALITY, DESIGN",
author = "A.M.J. Scheepers-Hoeks and R.J. Grouls and C. Neef and E.W. Ackerman and E.H. Korsten",
year = "2013",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1016/j.artmed.2013.05.002",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "33--38",
journal = "Artificial Intelligence in Medicine",
issn = "0933-3657",
publisher = "Elsevier Science",
number = "1",

}

Physicians' responses to clinical decision support on an intensive care unit--comparison of four different alerting methods. / Scheepers-Hoeks, A.M.J.; Grouls, R.J.; Neef, C.; Ackerman, E.W.; Korsten, E.H.

In: Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Vol. 59, No. 1, 09.2013, p. 33-38.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Physicians' responses to clinical decision support on an intensive care unit--comparison of four different alerting methods

AU - Scheepers-Hoeks, A.M.J.

AU - Grouls, R.J.

AU - Neef, C.

AU - Ackerman, E.W.

AU - Korsten, E.H.

PY - 2013/9

Y1 - 2013/9

N2 - BACKGROUND: In intensive care environments, technology is omnipresent whereby ensuring constant monitoring and the administration of critical drugs to unstable patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS), with its widespread possibilities, can be a valuable tool in supporting adequate patient care. However, it is still unclear how decision support alerts should be presented to physicians and other medical staff to ensure that they are used most effectively. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of four different alert presentation methods on alert compliance after the implementation of an advanced CDSS on the intensive care unit (ICU) in our hospital. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was executed from August 2010 till December 2011, which included all patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital. The CDSS applied contained a set of thirteen locally developed clinical rules. The percentage of alert compliance was compared for four alert presentation methods: pharmacy intervention, physician alert list, electronic health record (EHR) section and pop-up alerts. Additionally, surveys were held to determine the method most preferred by users of the CDSS. RESULTS: In the study period, the CDSS generated 902 unique alerts, primarily due to drug dosing during decreased renal function and potassium disturbances. Alert compliance was highest for recommendations offered in pop-up alerts (41%, n=68/166), followed by pharmacy intervention (33%, n=80/244), the physician alert list (20%, n=40/199) and the EHR section (19%, n=55/293). The method most preferred by clinicians was pharmacy intervention, and pop-up alerts were found suitable as well if applied correctly. The physician alert list and EHR section were not considered suitable for CDSSs in the process of this study. CONCLUSION: The alert presentation method used for CDSSs is crucial for the compliance with alerts for the clinical rules and, consequently, for the efficacy of these systems. Active alerts such as pop-ups and pharmacy intervention were more effective than passive alerts, which do not automatically appear within the clinical workflow. In this pilot study, ICU clinicians also preferred pharmacy intervention and pop-up alerts. More research is required to expand these results to other departments and other hospitals, as well as to other types of CDSSs and different alert presentation methods.

AB - BACKGROUND: In intensive care environments, technology is omnipresent whereby ensuring constant monitoring and the administration of critical drugs to unstable patients. A clinical decision support system (CDSS), with its widespread possibilities, can be a valuable tool in supporting adequate patient care. However, it is still unclear how decision support alerts should be presented to physicians and other medical staff to ensure that they are used most effectively. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of four different alert presentation methods on alert compliance after the implementation of an advanced CDSS on the intensive care unit (ICU) in our hospital. METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was executed from August 2010 till December 2011, which included all patients admitted to the ICU of our hospital. The CDSS applied contained a set of thirteen locally developed clinical rules. The percentage of alert compliance was compared for four alert presentation methods: pharmacy intervention, physician alert list, electronic health record (EHR) section and pop-up alerts. Additionally, surveys were held to determine the method most preferred by users of the CDSS. RESULTS: In the study period, the CDSS generated 902 unique alerts, primarily due to drug dosing during decreased renal function and potassium disturbances. Alert compliance was highest for recommendations offered in pop-up alerts (41%, n=68/166), followed by pharmacy intervention (33%, n=80/244), the physician alert list (20%, n=40/199) and the EHR section (19%, n=55/293). The method most preferred by clinicians was pharmacy intervention, and pop-up alerts were found suitable as well if applied correctly. The physician alert list and EHR section were not considered suitable for CDSSs in the process of this study. CONCLUSION: The alert presentation method used for CDSSs is crucial for the compliance with alerts for the clinical rules and, consequently, for the efficacy of these systems. Active alerts such as pop-ups and pharmacy intervention were more effective than passive alerts, which do not automatically appear within the clinical workflow. In this pilot study, ICU clinicians also preferred pharmacy intervention and pop-up alerts. More research is required to expand these results to other departments and other hospitals, as well as to other types of CDSSs and different alert presentation methods.

KW - Alert presentation method

KW - Clinical decision support systems

KW - Intensive care

KW - Medication alerts systems

KW - Clinical rules

KW - PRACTITIONER PERFORMANCE

KW - PATIENT OUTCOMES

KW - SAFETY ALERTS

KW - ORDER ENTRY

KW - SYSTEMS

KW - IMPLEMENTATION

KW - QUALITY

KW - DESIGN

U2 - 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.05.002

DO - 10.1016/j.artmed.2013.05.002

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 33

EP - 38

JO - Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

JF - Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

SN - 0933-3657

IS - 1

ER -