Sisyphus' Alert: The Uphill Struggle to Improve Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Clinical Decision Support.

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-03 DOI:10.1055/a-2661-3670
Emily E Schildt, Paul R Sutton, Andrew F Lees, Hasan B Ahmad, Albert C Lee, Michael G Leu, Patrick Wedgeworth, Andrew A White
{"title":"Sisyphus' Alert: The Uphill Struggle to Improve Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Clinical Decision Support.","authors":"Emily E Schildt, Paul R Sutton, Andrew F Lees, Hasan B Ahmad, Albert C Lee, Michael G Leu, Patrick Wedgeworth, Andrew A White","doi":"10.1055/a-2661-3670","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chemoprophylaxis reduces the risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE), but is not reliably ordered. Our institution created a clinical decision support (CDS) interruptive alert to remind clinicians to order VTE chemoprophylaxis when it is missing for qualifying inpatients. Unfortunately, this alert has required repeated modifications to ensure accurate logic, and continues to generate negative feedback from users.This study aimed to describe multiple failures in the development and postdeployment optimization of this interruptive alert, and our lessons learned.This study analyzed the number of times this alert fired over 6 months of testing and 16 months of deployment, and changes in either the frequency of alert firing or the frequency of the alert being dismissed without orders placed with iterative changes in the alert logic. Feedback about this alert was compiled and classified into common themes.The initial alert fired an average of 11,154 times per week when tested silently, prompting significant refinements before release. The alert shown to users fired an average of 53.8 times per 1,000 patient days in the first 6 months of the study period. Despite postlaunch improvements, this rose to 61 alerts per 1,000 patient days in the final 6 months of the study. Modifications also did not cause a significant decrease in how frequently the alert was dismissed without further action being taken (88%). Review of narrative feedback and its classification highlights \"wrong person\" receiving the alert being by far the most prevalent cause for negative submitted user feedback (nearly 50%), despite efforts to develop logic that limits firing to the patient's primary team.Changes to this VTE alert were summarized as failures to meet the \"five rights\" of CDS. Alerts for high-priority safety issues require persistent feedback-driven improvement, particularly when there is poor performance or negative user experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"16 4","pages":"988-994"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12408118/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2661-3670","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chemoprophylaxis reduces the risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE), but is not reliably ordered. Our institution created a clinical decision support (CDS) interruptive alert to remind clinicians to order VTE chemoprophylaxis when it is missing for qualifying inpatients. Unfortunately, this alert has required repeated modifications to ensure accurate logic, and continues to generate negative feedback from users.This study aimed to describe multiple failures in the development and postdeployment optimization of this interruptive alert, and our lessons learned.This study analyzed the number of times this alert fired over 6 months of testing and 16 months of deployment, and changes in either the frequency of alert firing or the frequency of the alert being dismissed without orders placed with iterative changes in the alert logic. Feedback about this alert was compiled and classified into common themes.The initial alert fired an average of 11,154 times per week when tested silently, prompting significant refinements before release. The alert shown to users fired an average of 53.8 times per 1,000 patient days in the first 6 months of the study period. Despite postlaunch improvements, this rose to 61 alerts per 1,000 patient days in the final 6 months of the study. Modifications also did not cause a significant decrease in how frequently the alert was dismissed without further action being taken (88%). Review of narrative feedback and its classification highlights "wrong person" receiving the alert being by far the most prevalent cause for negative submitted user feedback (nearly 50%), despite efforts to develop logic that limits firing to the patient's primary team.Changes to this VTE alert were summarized as failures to meet the "five rights" of CDS. Alerts for high-priority safety issues require persistent feedback-driven improvement, particularly when there is poor performance or negative user experience.

西西弗斯的警报:提高静脉血栓栓塞预防临床决策支持的艰难斗争。
化学预防降低了医院获得性静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)的风险,但并不可靠。我们的机构创建了一个临床决策支持(CDS)中断警报,提醒临床医生在符合条件的住院患者缺少静脉血栓栓塞化学预防时订购静脉血栓栓塞。不幸的是,此警报需要反复修改以确保准确的逻辑,并且继续从用户那里产生负面反馈。本研究旨在描述这种中断警报在开发和部署后优化中的多个失败,以及我们的经验教训。本研究分析了警报在6个月的测试和16个月的部署期间发出的次数,以及警报发出的频率的变化,或者警报在没有命令的情况下被解除的频率,以及警报逻辑中的迭代变化。关于此警报的反馈被编译并分类为常见主题。在无声测试时,最初的警报平均每周触发11,154次,在发布前进行了重大改进。在研究期间的前6个月,向用户显示的警报平均每1000个病人日发出53.8次。尽管在试验开始后有所改善,但在研究的最后6个月,这一数字上升到每1000个病人日发出61次警报。在不采取进一步措施的情况下,修改也没有显著降低警报被驳回的频率(88%)。对叙述性反馈及其分类的回顾表明,“错误的人”收到警报是迄今为止提交的负面用户反馈最普遍的原因(近50%),尽管人们努力开发逻辑,将开火限制在患者的主要团队中。VTE警报的变化被总结为未能满足CDS的“五项权利”。对于高优先级安全问题的警报需要持续的反馈驱动的改进,特别是当存在较差的性能或负面的用户体验时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信