000			03479nam a22006017a 4500
008			180818s20182018 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
022			_a0279-5442
024			_a10.4037/ccn2018352 [doi]
024			_a38/4/46 [pii]
024			_aNIHMS974183 [mid]
024			_aPMC6080211 [pmc]
040			_aOvid MEDLINE(R)
099			_a30068720
245			_aEvaluation of User-Interface Alert Displays for Clinical Decision Support Systems for Sepsis.
251			_aCritical Care Nurse. 38(4):46-54, 2018 Aug.
252			_aCrit Care Nurse. 38(4):46-54, 2018 Aug.
253			_aCritical care nurse
260			_c2018
260			_fFY2019
266			_d2018-08-16
501			_aAvailable online through MWHC library: 2002 - present
520			_aBACKGROUND: Hospitals are increasingly turning to clinical decision support systems for sepsis, a life-threatening illness, to provide patient-specific assessments and recommendations to aid in evidence-based clinical decision-making. Lack of guidelines on how to present alerts has impeded optimization of alerts, specifically, effective ways to differentiate alerts while highlighting important pieces of information to create a universal standard for health care providers.
520			_aCONCLUSIONS: The results can be used in future research to optimize electronic medical record alerting and clinical practice workflow to support the efficient, effective, and timely delivery of high-quality care to patients with sepsis. The research also may advance the knowledge base of what information health care providers want and need to improve the health and safety of their patients.
520			_aCopyright (c)2018 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.
520			_aMETHODS: An interactive survey to display a novel user interface for clinical decision support systems for sepsis was developed and then administered to members of the nursing staff.
520			_aOBJECTIVE: To gain insight into clinical decision support systems-based alerts, specifically targeting nursing interventions for sepsis, with a focus on behaviors associated with and perceptions of alerts, as well as visual preferences.
520			_aRESULTS: A total of 43 nurses participated in 2 interactive survey sessions. Participants preferred alerts that were based on an established treatment protocol, were presented in a pop-up format, and addressed the patient's clinical condition rather than regulatory guidelines.
546			_aEnglish
650			_a*Clinical Alarms
650			_a*Critical Care Nursing/mt [Methods]
650			_a*Environmental Monitoring/is [Instrumentation]
650			_a*Environmental Monitoring/mt [Methods]
650			_a*Evidence-Based Nursing/mt [Methods]
650			_a*Sepsis/di [Diagnosis]
650			_a*Sepsis/nu [Nursing]
650			_aAdult
650			_aAged
650			_aAttitude of Health Personnel
650			_aDecision Support Systems, Clinical
650			_aFemale
650			_aHumans
650			_aMale
650			_aMiddle Aged
650			_aNursing Staff, Hospital/px [Psychology]
650			_aYoung Adult
651			_aMedStar Institute for Innovation
657			_aJournal Article
700			_aMiller, Kristen
700			_aWeldon, Danielle LM
790			_aArnold R, Capan M, Long D, Mascioli S, Miller K, Weldon D
856			_uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ccn2018352 _zhttps://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ccn2018352
942			_cART _dArticle
999			_c3648 _d3648