Akademska digitalna zbirka SLovenije - logo
E-viri
Recenzirano Odprti dostop
  • Electronic health record al...
    Wilson, F Perry; Martin, Melissa; Yamamoto, Yu; Partridge, Caitlin; Moreira, Erica; Arora, Tanima; Biswas, Aditya; Feldman, Harold; Garg, Amit X; Greenberg, Jason H; Hinchcliff, Monique; Latham, Stephen; Li, Fan; Lin, Haiqun; Mansour, Sherry G; Moledina, Dennis G; Palevsky, Paul M; Parikh, Chirag R; Simonov, Michael; Testani, Jeffrey; Ugwuowo, Ugochukwu

    BMJ (Online), 01/2021, Letnik: 372
    Journal Article

    AbstractObjectiveTo determine whether electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury would improve patient outcomes of mortality, dialysis, and progression of acute kidney injury.DesignDouble blinded, multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial.SettingSix hospitals (four teaching and two non-teaching) in the Yale New Haven Health System in Connecticut and Rhode Island, US, ranging from small community hospitals to large tertiary care centers.Participants6030 adult inpatients with acute kidney injury, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria.InterventionsAn electronic health record based “pop-up” alert for acute kidney injury with an associated acute kidney injury order set upon provider opening of the patient’s medical record.Main outcome measuresA composite of progression of acute kidney injury, receipt of dialysis, or death within 14 days of randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included outcomes at each hospital and frequency of various care practices for acute kidney injury.Results6030 patients were randomized over 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 653 (21.3%) of 3059 patients with an alert and in 622 (20.9%) of 2971 patients receiving usual care (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.13, P=0.67). Analysis by each hospital showed worse outcomes in the two non-teaching hospitals (n=765, 13%), where alerts were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome (relative risk 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.98, P=0.006). More deaths occurred at these centers (15.6% in the alert group v 8.6% in the usual care group, P=0.003). Certain acute kidney injury care practices were increased in the alert group but did not appear to mediate these outcomes.ConclusionsAlerts did not reduce the risk of our primary outcome among patients in hospital with acute kidney injury. The heterogeneity of effect across clinical centers should lead to a re-evaluation of existing alerting systems for acute kidney injury.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02753751.