Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-2661-3670
Sisyphus' Alert: The Uphill Struggle to Improve Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Clinical Decision Support

Abstract
Background
Chemoprophylaxis reduces the risk of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE), but is not reliably ordered. Our institution created a clinical decision support (CDS) interruptive alert to remind clinicians to order VTE chemoprophylaxis when it is missing for qualifying inpatients. Unfortunately, this alert has required repeated modifications to ensure accurate logic, and continues to generate negative feedback from users.
Objectives
This study aimed to describe multiple failures in the development and postdeployment optimization of this interruptive alert, and our lessons learned.
Methods
This study analyzed the number of times this alert fired over 6 months of testing and 16 months of deployment, and changes in either the frequency of alert firing or the frequency of the alert being dismissed without orders placed with iterative changes in the alert logic. Feedback about this alert was compiled and classified into common themes.
Results
The initial alert fired an average of 11,154 times per week when tested silently, prompting significant refinements before release. The alert shown to users fired an average of 53.8 times per 1,000 patient days in the first 6 months of the study period. Despite postlaunch improvements, this rose to 61 alerts per 1,000 patient days in the final 6 months of the study. Modifications also did not cause a significant decrease in how frequently the alert was dismissed without further action being taken (88%). Review of narrative feedback and its classification highlights “wrong person” receiving the alert being by far the most prevalent cause for negative submitted user feedback (nearly 50%), despite efforts to develop logic that limits firing to the patient's primary team.
Conclusion
Changes to this VTE alert were summarized as failures to meet the “five rights” of CDS. Alerts for high-priority safety issues require persistent feedback-driven improvement, particularly when there is poor performance or negative user experience.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
The Institutional Review Board has reviewed and deemed this “not human subjects research.”
Publication History
Received: 03 December 2024
Accepted: 20 July 2025
Article published online:
03 September 2025
© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Schünemann HJ, Cushman M, Burnett AE. et al. American Society of Hematology 2018 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prophylaxis for hospitalized and nonhospitalized medical patients. Blood Adv 2018; 2 (22) 3198-3225
- 2 Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF. et al; ENDORSE Investigators. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 2008; 371 (9610) 387-394
- 3 Amin A, Neuman WR, Lingohr-Smith M, Menges B, Lin J. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and risk in the inpatient and outpatient continuum of care among hospitalized acutely ill patients in the US: a retrospective analysis. Adv Ther 2019; 36 (01) 59-71
- 4 Ortel TL, Arnold K, Beckman M. et al. Design and implementation of a comprehensive surveillance system for venous thromboembolism in a defined region using electronic and manual approaches. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (03) 552-562
- 5 Amin AN, Stemkowski S, Lin J, Yang G. Inpatient thromboprophylaxis use in U.S. hospitals: adherence to the seventh American College of Chest Physician's recommendations for at-risk medical and surgical patients. J Hosp Med 2009; 4 (08) E15-E21
- 6 Mathers B, Williams E, Bedi G, Messaris E, Tinsley A. An electronic alert system is associated with a significant increase in pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis rates among hospitalized inflammatory bowel disease patients. J Healthc Qual 2017; 39 (05) 307-314
- 7 Mahan CE, Spyropoulos AC. Venous thromboembolism prevention: a systematic review of methods to improve prophylaxis and decrease events in the hospitalized patient. Hosp Pract (1995) 2010; 38 (01) 97-108
- 8 Leal LF, Falavigna M, Gazzana MB. et al. Protocol implementation for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a before-and-after study in medical and surgical patients. J Bras Pneumol 2020; 46 (04) e20180325
- 9 Baugh CW, Cash RE, Meguerdichian D. et al. An electronic medical record intervention to increase pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in emergency department observation patients. Ann Emerg Med 2024; 83 (01) 24-34
- 10 Lecumberri R, Marqués M, Díaz-Navarlaz MT. et al. Maintained effectiveness of an electronic alert system to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. Thromb Haemost 2008; 100 (04) 699-704
- 11 Woller SC, Stevens SM, Evans RS. et al. Electronic alerts, comparative practitioner metrics, and education improves thromboprophylaxis and reduces thrombosis. Am J Med 2016; 129 (10) 1124.e17-1124.e26
- 12 Diana Yap FS, Ng ZY, Wong CY, Muhamad Saifuzzaman MK, Yang LB. Appropriateness of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis use among medical inpatients: a DVT risk alert tool (DRAT) study. Med J Malaysia 2019; 74 (01) 45-50
- 13 Amland RC, Dean BB, Yu H. et al. Computerized clinical decision support to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients: proximal outcomes from a multiyear quality improvement project. J Healthc Qual 2015; 37 (04) 221-231
- 14 Borab ZM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Pannucci CJ, Fischer JP. Use of computerized clinical decision support systems to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 2017; 152 (07) 638-645
- 15 Kahn SR, Morrison DR, Diendéré G. et al. Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 4 (04) CD008201
- 16 Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R. et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (10) 969-977
- 17 Fallon A, Haralambides K, Mazzillo J, Gleber C. Addressing alert fatigue by replacing a burdensome interruptive alert with passive clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (01) 101-110
- 18 Chaparro JD, Hussain C, Lee JA, Hehmeyer J, Nguyen M, Hoffman J. Reducing interruptive alert burden using quality improvement methodology. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (01) 46-58
- 19 McDaniel RB, Burlison JD, Baker DK. et al. Alert dwell time: introduction of a measure to evaluate interruptive clinical decision support alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (e1): e138-e141
- 20 Knake LA, Asbury R, Penisten S. et al. Successfully transitioning an interruptive alert into a non-interruptive alert for central line dressing changes in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (05) 965-969
- 21 Chaparro JD, Beus JM, Dziorny AC. et al. Clinical decision support stewardship: best practices and techniques to monitor and improve interruptive alerts. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (03) 560-568
- 22 Blecker S, Pandya R, Stork S. et al. Interruptive versus noninterruptive clinical decision support: usability study. JMIR Hum Factors 2019; 6 (02) e12469
- 23 Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Middleton B, Steen EB, Wright A, Detmer DE. A roadmap for national action on clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14 (02) 141-145
- 24 Montgomery D. Introduction to Statistical Process Control. 4th Ed.. New York, NY: Wiley;
- 25 O'Toole RV, Stein DM, O'Hara NN. et al; Major Extremity Trauma Research Consortium (METRC). Aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis after a fracture. N Engl J Med 2023; 388 (03) 203-213
- 26 Yan AP, Parsons C, Caplan G. et al. Clinical decision support to enhance venous thromboembolism pharmacoprophylaxis prescribing for pediatric inpatients with COVID-19. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2024; 71 (03) e30843
- 27 Nwulu U, Brooks H, Richardson S, McFarland L, Coleman JJ. Electronic risk assessment for venous thromboembolism: investigating physicians' rationale for bypassing clinical decision support recommendations. BMJ Open 2014; 4 (09) e005647
- 28 Mohsen A, Kuperman E, McDanel J. et al. Using electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) to perform a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis rapid cycle quality improvement initiative. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2019; 45 (11) 750-756
- 29 Powers EM, Shiffman RN, Melnick ER, Hickner A, Sharifi M. Efficacy and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts in electronic health record systems: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (11) 1556-1566
- 30 Orenstein EW, Muthu N, Weitkamp AO. et al. Towards a maturity model for clinical decision support operations. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 810-819
- 31 Richie CD, Castle JT, Davis GA. et al. Modes of failure in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Angiology 2022; 73 (08) 712-715
- 32 Khan S, King D, Osmani S. et al. Provider response to a venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis ordering tool: observational study. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (05) 1214-1222
- 33 Kandaswamy S, Williams H, Thompson SA, Dawson TE, Muthu N, Orenstein EW. Realizing the full potential of clinical decision support: translating usability testing into routine practice in health care operations. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (05) 1039-1048