Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 19, 2026

Author Spotlight: Workflow for Integrating POCUS Data into EHR for Managing Heart Failure Patients
Published on: July 12, 2024
Interrupting providers with clinical decision support to improve care for heart failure
Saul Blecker1, Jonathan S Austrian2, Leora I Horwitz1
1Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
Insights
Interruptive clinical decision support (CDS) improved heart failure medication use at discharge compared to non-interruptive alerts. However, the high alert burden warrants further evaluation for optimal cardiovascular care.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Health Informatics
- Clinical Decision Support Systems
Background:
- Evidence-based heart failure therapies are underutilized at hospital discharge.
- Patients hospitalized for conditions other than heart failure often miss guideline-directed medical therapy.
- Clinical decision support (CDS) was developed to promote ACE inhibitor use at discharge.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare the effectiveness of interruptive versus non-interruptive CDS alerts.
- To evaluate the implementation of different CDS alert types.
- To improve heart failure care and medication adherence.
Main Methods:
- Pseudo-randomized trial comparing interruptive and non-interruptive CDS alerts.
- Assessed discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
- Evaluated CDS adoption and implementation fidelity.
Main Results:
- Interruptive alerts showed higher discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors/ARBs (79.6% vs. 74.2%).
- Higher utilization was observed for non-heart failure hospitalizations with interruptive alerts (79.8% vs. 73.4%).
- Interruptive alerts had higher response rates and contraindication reporting.
Conclusions:
- Interruptive CDS alerts improved heart failure medication use at discharge.
- The high burden of interruptive alerts requires further consideration.
- Optimizing CDS for cardiovascular care warrants additional study.
Background:
Evidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions.
Objectives:
To compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure.
Methods:
Hospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS.
Results:
Of 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization.
Conclusions:
A CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS.
Gov Identifier:
NCT02858674.
More Related Videos
05:35Author Spotlight: Developing a Point-of-Care Hemoglobin Estimation Method for Anemia Management
Published on: January 19, 2024
04:05Author Spotlight: Unveiling Prognostic Indicators in Heart Failure - The Role of Phase Angle and Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis
Published on: June 30, 2023
Related Concept Videos
03:47Workflow and Framework for Collecting and Implementing Point-of-Care Ultrasound Data in the Management of Heart Failure Patients
05:35A Point-of-Care Method with Integrated Decision Support Tool to Estimate Anemia at Population Level
Heart Failure III: Clinical Manifestations
04:05Clinical Application of Phase Angle and BIVA Z-Score Analyses in Patients Admitted to an Emergency Department with Acute Heart Failure
14:32Using Visual and Narrative Methods to Achieve Fair Process in Clinical Care
07:49A Pacing-Controlled Procedure for the Assessment of Heart Rate-Dependent Diastolic Functions in Murine Heart Failure Models