title: How Regrouping Alerts in Computerized Physician Order Entry Layout Influences Physicians' Prescription Behavior: Results of a Crossover Randomized Trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  As demonstrated in several publications, low positive predictive value alerts in computerized physician order entry (CPOE) induce fatigue and may interrupt physicians unnecessarily during prescription of medication. Although it is difficult to increase the consideration of medical alerts by physician through an improvement of their predictive value, another approach consists to act on the way they are presented. The interruption management model inspired us to propose an alternative alert display strategy of regrouping the alerts in the screen layout, as a possible solution for reducing the interruption in physicians' workflow.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  In this study, we compared 2 CPOE designs based on a particular alert presentation strategy: one design involved regrouping the alerts in a single place on the screen, and in the other, the alerts were located next to the triggering information. Our objective was to evaluate experimentally whether the new design led to fewer interruptions in workflow and if it affected alert handling.
  
  
  METHODS
  The 2 CPOE designs were compared in a controlled crossover randomized trial. All interactions with the system and eye movements were stored for quantitative analysis.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The study involved a group of 22 users consisting of physicians and medical students who solved medical scenarios containing prescription tasks. Scenario completion time was shorter when the alerts were regrouped (mean 117.29 seconds, SD 36.68) than when disseminated on the screen (mean 145.58 seconds, SD 75.07; P=.045). Eye tracking revealed that physicians fixated longer on alerts in the classic design (mean 119.71 seconds, SD 76.77) than in the centralized alert design (mean 70.58 seconds, SD 33.53; P=.001). Visual switches between prescription and alert areas, indicating interruption, were reduced with centralized alerts (mean 41.29, SD 21.26) compared with the classic design (mean 57.81, SD 35.97; P=.04). Prescription behavior (ie, prescription changes after alerting), however, did not change significantly between the 2 strategies of display. The After-Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ) that was filled out after each scenario showed that overall satisfaction was significantly rated lower when alerts were regrouped (mean 4.37, SD 1.23) than when displayed next to the triggering information (mean 5.32, SD 0.94; P=.02).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Centralization of alerts in a table might be a way to motivate physicians to manage alerts more actively, in a meaningful way, rather than just being interrupted by them. Our study could not provide clear recommendations yet, but provides objective data through a cognitive psychological approach. Future tests should work on standardized scenarios that would enable to not only measure physicians' behavior (visual fixations and handling of alerts) but also validate those actions using clinical criteria.
authors.affiliation: Division of Medical Information Sciences, Department of Radiology and Medical Informatics, University Hospitals of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Rolf
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6339-5578
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Wipfli
authors.forename: Frederic
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9734-3242
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Ehrler
authors.forename: Georges
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9177-8798
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Bediang
authors.forename: Mireille
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7144-167X
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bétrancourt
authors.forename: Christian
authors.identifier: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2681-8076
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Lovis
keywords: User-Computer Interface; adverse drug reaction reporting systems; clinical decision support systems; eye tracking; medical order entry systems