Background Health systems often employ interruptive alerts through the electronic health record to improve patient care. However, concerns of “alert fatigue” have been raised, highlighting the importance of understanding the time burden and impact of these alerts on providers. Objectives Our main objective was to determine the total time providers spent on interruptive alerts in both inpatient and outpatient settings. Our secondary objectives were to analyze dwell time for individual alerts and examine both provider and alert-related factors associated with dwell time variance. Methods We retrospectively evaluated use and response to the 75 most common interruptive (“popup”) alerts between June 1st, 2015 and November 1st, 2016 in a large academic health care system. Alert “dwell time” was calculated as the time between the alert appearing on a provider's screen until it was closed. The total number of alerts and dwell times per provider per month was calculated for inpatient and outpatient alerts and compared across alert type. Results The median number of alerts seen by a provider was 12 per month (IQR 4–34). Overall, 67% of inpatient and 39% of outpatient alerts were closed in under 3 seconds. Alerts related to patient safety and those requiring more than a single click to proceed had significantly longer median dwell times of 5.2 and 6.7 seconds, respectively. The median total monthly time spent by providers viewing alerts was 49 seconds on inpatient alerts and 28 seconds on outpatient alerts. Conclusion Most alerts were closed in under 3 seconds and a provider's total time spent on alerts was less than 1 min/mo. Alert fatigue may lie in their interruptive and noncritical nature rather than time burden. Monitoring alert interaction time can function as a valuable metric to assess the impact of alerts on workflow and potentially identify routinely ignored alerts.

Little is known about the nature of interprofessional collaboration on intensive care units (ICUs), despite its recognition as a key component of patient safety and quality improvement initiatives. This comparative ethnographic study addresses this gap in knowledge and explores the different factors that influence collaborative work in the ICU. It aims to develop an empirically grounded team diagnostic tool, and associated interventions to strengthen team-based care and patient family involvement. This iterative study is comprised of three phases: a scoping review, a multi-site ethnographic study in eight ICUs over two years; and the development of a diagnostic tool and associated interprofessional intervention-development. This study's multi-site design and the richness and breadth of its data maximize its potential to improve clinical outcomes through an enhanced understanding of interprofessional dynamics and how patient family members in ICU settings are best included in care processes. Our research dissemination strategy, as well as the diagnostic tool and associated educational interventions developed from this study will help transfer the study's findings to other settings.

No abstract