Testing modes of computerized sepsis alert notification delivery systems

Mikhail A. Dziadzko, Andrew M. Harrison, Ing C. Tiong, Brian W Pickering, Pablo Moreno Franco, Vitaly D Herasevich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The number of electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications continues to rise. One common method to deliver urgent and emergent notifications (alerts) is paging. Despite of wide presence of smartphones, the use of these devices for secure alerting remains a relatively new phenomenon. Methods: We compared three methods of alert delivery (pagers, EHR-based notifications, and smartphones) to determine the best method of urgent alerting in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. ICU clinicians received randomized automated sepsis alerts: pager, EHR-based notification, or a personal smartphone/tablet device. Time to notification acknowledgement, fatigue measurement, and user preferences (structured survey) were studied. Results: Twenty three clinicians participated over the course of 3 months. A total of 48 randomized sepsis alerts were generated for 46 unique patients. Although all alerts were acknowledged, the primary outcome was confounded by technical failure of alert delivery in the smartphone/tablet arm. Median time to acknowledgment of urgent alerts was shorter by pager (102 mins) than EHR (169 mins). Secondary outcomes of fatigue measurement and user preference did not demonstrate significant differences between these notification delivery study arms. Conclusions: Technical failure of secure smartphone/tablet alert delivery presents a barrier to testing the optimal method of urgent alert delivery in the ICU setting. Results from fatigue evaluation and user preferences for alert delivery methods were similar in all arms. Further investigation is thus necessary to understand human and technical barriers to implementation of commonplace modern technology in the hospital setting.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number156
JournalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 9 2016

Fingerprint

Sepsis
Electronic Health Records
Tablets
Fatigue
Intensive Care Units
Equipment and Supplies
Smartphone
Technology

Keywords

  • Alert fatigue
  • Decision support system
  • Methods of alert delivery
  • Notification
  • Sepsis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health Policy
  • Health Informatics

Cite this

Testing modes of computerized sepsis alert notification delivery systems. / Dziadzko, Mikhail A.; Harrison, Andrew M.; Tiong, Ing C.; Pickering, Brian W; Moreno Franco, Pablo; Herasevich, Vitaly D.

In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol. 16, No. 1, 156, 09.12.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dziadzko, Mikhail A. ; Harrison, Andrew M. ; Tiong, Ing C. ; Pickering, Brian W ; Moreno Franco, Pablo ; Herasevich, Vitaly D. / Testing modes of computerized sepsis alert notification delivery systems. In: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2016 ; Vol. 16, No. 1.
@article{0d0b29a02baf4874aa436a25e16e6f17,
title = "Testing modes of computerized sepsis alert notification delivery systems",
abstract = "Background: The number of electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications continues to rise. One common method to deliver urgent and emergent notifications (alerts) is paging. Despite of wide presence of smartphones, the use of these devices for secure alerting remains a relatively new phenomenon. Methods: We compared three methods of alert delivery (pagers, EHR-based notifications, and smartphones) to determine the best method of urgent alerting in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. ICU clinicians received randomized automated sepsis alerts: pager, EHR-based notification, or a personal smartphone/tablet device. Time to notification acknowledgement, fatigue measurement, and user preferences (structured survey) were studied. Results: Twenty three clinicians participated over the course of 3 months. A total of 48 randomized sepsis alerts were generated for 46 unique patients. Although all alerts were acknowledged, the primary outcome was confounded by technical failure of alert delivery in the smartphone/tablet arm. Median time to acknowledgment of urgent alerts was shorter by pager (102 mins) than EHR (169 mins). Secondary outcomes of fatigue measurement and user preference did not demonstrate significant differences between these notification delivery study arms. Conclusions: Technical failure of secure smartphone/tablet alert delivery presents a barrier to testing the optimal method of urgent alert delivery in the ICU setting. Results from fatigue evaluation and user preferences for alert delivery methods were similar in all arms. Further investigation is thus necessary to understand human and technical barriers to implementation of commonplace modern technology in the hospital setting.",
keywords = "Alert fatigue, Decision support system, Methods of alert delivery, Notification, Sepsis",
author = "Dziadzko, {Mikhail A.} and Harrison, {Andrew M.} and Tiong, {Ing C.} and Pickering, {Brian W} and {Moreno Franco}, Pablo and Herasevich, {Vitaly D}",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "9",
doi = "10.1186/s12911-016-0396-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
journal = "BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making",
issn = "1472-6947",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing modes of computerized sepsis alert notification delivery systems

AU - Dziadzko, Mikhail A.

AU - Harrison, Andrew M.

AU - Tiong, Ing C.

AU - Pickering, Brian W

AU - Moreno Franco, Pablo

AU - Herasevich, Vitaly D

PY - 2016/12/9

Y1 - 2016/12/9

N2 - Background: The number of electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications continues to rise. One common method to deliver urgent and emergent notifications (alerts) is paging. Despite of wide presence of smartphones, the use of these devices for secure alerting remains a relatively new phenomenon. Methods: We compared three methods of alert delivery (pagers, EHR-based notifications, and smartphones) to determine the best method of urgent alerting in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. ICU clinicians received randomized automated sepsis alerts: pager, EHR-based notification, or a personal smartphone/tablet device. Time to notification acknowledgement, fatigue measurement, and user preferences (structured survey) were studied. Results: Twenty three clinicians participated over the course of 3 months. A total of 48 randomized sepsis alerts were generated for 46 unique patients. Although all alerts were acknowledged, the primary outcome was confounded by technical failure of alert delivery in the smartphone/tablet arm. Median time to acknowledgment of urgent alerts was shorter by pager (102 mins) than EHR (169 mins). Secondary outcomes of fatigue measurement and user preference did not demonstrate significant differences between these notification delivery study arms. Conclusions: Technical failure of secure smartphone/tablet alert delivery presents a barrier to testing the optimal method of urgent alert delivery in the ICU setting. Results from fatigue evaluation and user preferences for alert delivery methods were similar in all arms. Further investigation is thus necessary to understand human and technical barriers to implementation of commonplace modern technology in the hospital setting.

AB - Background: The number of electronic health record (EHR)-based notifications continues to rise. One common method to deliver urgent and emergent notifications (alerts) is paging. Despite of wide presence of smartphones, the use of these devices for secure alerting remains a relatively new phenomenon. Methods: We compared three methods of alert delivery (pagers, EHR-based notifications, and smartphones) to determine the best method of urgent alerting in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. ICU clinicians received randomized automated sepsis alerts: pager, EHR-based notification, or a personal smartphone/tablet device. Time to notification acknowledgement, fatigue measurement, and user preferences (structured survey) were studied. Results: Twenty three clinicians participated over the course of 3 months. A total of 48 randomized sepsis alerts were generated for 46 unique patients. Although all alerts were acknowledged, the primary outcome was confounded by technical failure of alert delivery in the smartphone/tablet arm. Median time to acknowledgment of urgent alerts was shorter by pager (102 mins) than EHR (169 mins). Secondary outcomes of fatigue measurement and user preference did not demonstrate significant differences between these notification delivery study arms. Conclusions: Technical failure of secure smartphone/tablet alert delivery presents a barrier to testing the optimal method of urgent alert delivery in the ICU setting. Results from fatigue evaluation and user preferences for alert delivery methods were similar in all arms. Further investigation is thus necessary to understand human and technical barriers to implementation of commonplace modern technology in the hospital setting.

KW - Alert fatigue

KW - Decision support system

KW - Methods of alert delivery

KW - Notification

KW - Sepsis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85003749533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85003749533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12911-016-0396-y

DO - 10.1186/s12911-016-0396-y

M3 - Article

C2 - 27938401

AN - SCOPUS:85003749533

VL - 16

JO - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

JF - BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

SN - 1472-6947

IS - 1

M1 - 156

ER -