Cited by 24Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Primary Care Providers’ Opening of Time-Sensitive Alerts Sent to Commercial Electronic Health Record InBaskets

Open access
Cutrona, Sarah L., Fouayzi, Hassan, Burns, Laura, Sadasivam, Rajani S., Mazor, Kathleen M., Gurwitz, Jerry H., Garber, Lawrence, Sundaresan, Devi +2 more·2017·Journal of General Internal Medicine

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-017-4146-3

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies using raw audit logs fit into three broad categories: manual mapping, identification of networks, application of automatic methods.

    “Studies using raw audit logs fit into three broad categories:”

    From Electronic health record activity changes around new decision support implementation: monitoring using audit logs and topic modeling (2025) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Discussion describes uses of EHR audit logs, and Dependent Variables explains how this study used them to track alert opening. Neither section classifies audit-log studies into manual mapping, network identification, and automatic methods; searches for those terms and the proposed three-category classification found no supporting passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cutrona, S. L., Fouayzi, H., Burns, L., Sadasivam, R. S., Mazor, K. M., Gurwitz, J. H., Garber, L., Sundaresan, D., Houston, T. K., & Field, T. S.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
Corresponding author
Cutrona, Sarah L.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2017-08-14
Volume
32
Issue
11
Pages
1210-1219
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2748928483
Cited by
24
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2
FWCI
3.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Cancer Institute (K07CA172677)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
electronic health record alerts, primary care providers, clinical decision support, elderly patients, length of hospital stay, patient safety
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Discharge, Primary Health Care, Time Factors, Reminder Systems, Electronic Health Records, Physicians, Primary Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review