Cited by 65Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Provider management strategies of abnormal test result alerts: a cognitive task analysis

Open access
Hysong, S. J, Sawhney, M. K, Wilson, L., Sittig, D. F, Espadas, D., Davis, T., Singh, H.·2010·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Electronic medical records (EMRs) facilitate abnormal test result communication through "alert" notifications. The aim was to evaluate how primary care providers (PCPs) manage alerts related to critical diagnostic test results on their EMR screens, and compare alert-management strategies of providers with high versus low rates of timely follow-up of results. DESIGN: 28 PCPs from a large, tertiary care Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) were purposively sampled according to their rates of timely follow-up of alerts, determined in a previous study. Using techniques from cognitive task analysis, participants were interviewed about how and when they manage alerts, focusing on four alert-management features to filter, sort and reduce unnecessary alerts on their EMR screens. RESULTS: Provider knowledge of alert-management features ranged between 4% and 75%. Almost half (46%) of providers did not use any of these features, and none used more than two. Providers with higher versus lower rates of timely follow-up used the four features similarly, except one (customizing alert notifications). Providers with low rates of timely follow-up tended to manually scan the alert list and process alerts heuristically using their clinical judgment. Additionally, 46% of providers used at least one workaround strategy to manage alerts. CONCLUSION: Considerable heterogeneity exists in provider use of alert-management strategies; specific strategies may be associated with lower rates of timely follow-up. Standardization of alert-management strategies including improving provider knowledge of appropriate tools in the EMR to manage alerts could reduce the lack of timely follow-up of abnormal diagnostic test results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1197/jamia.m3200

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The experimental design was based on previous findings that attending physicians use the EHR to manage approximately 57 test results per day over multiple interactions.

    “The experimental design was based on previous findings that attending physicians use the EHR to manage approximately 57 test results per day over multiple interactions.22,23”
  • Some key remaining barriers to effective management of test results are suboptimal usability of existing EHR interfaces and the high volume of abnormal test result alerts, especially less-critical alerts that produce clutter and distract from the important ones.

    “Some key remaining barriers to effective management of test results are suboptimal usability of existing EHR interfaces and the high volume of abnormal test result alerts, especially less-critical alerts that produce clutter and distract from the important ones.22,23”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hysong, S. J., Sawhney, M. K., Wilson, L., Sittig, D. F., Espadas, D., Davis, T., & Singh, H.
Affiliations
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
Corresponding author
Hysong, S. J
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2010-01-01
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
71-77
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2143215537
Cited by
65
References
55
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
10.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
clinical decision support alerts, electronic health records, primary care providers, cognitive task analysis, clinical judgment, Veterans Affairs hospitals
MeSH terms
Computer User Training, Continuity of Patient Care, Diagnostic Imaging, Female, Humans, Male, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Task Performance and Analysis, Texas, Veterans, Reminder Systems, Electronic Health Records

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