Electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial

F. Perry Wilson, Melissa Martin, Yu Yamamoto, Caitlin Partridge, Erica Moreira, Tanima Arora, Aditya Biswas, Harold Feldman, Amit X. Garg, Jason H. Greenberg, Monique Hinchcliff, Stephen Latham, Fan Li, Haiqun Lin, Sherry G. Mansour, Dennis G. Moledina, Paul M. Palevsky, Chirag R. Parikh, Michael Simonov, Jeffrey TestaniUgochukwu Ugwuowo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations


AbstractObjective To determine whether electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury would improve patient outcomes of mortality, dialysis, and progression of acute kidney injury. Design Double blinded, multicenter, parallel, randomized controlled trial. Setting Six 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. Participants 6030 adult inpatients with acute kidney injury, as defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) creatinine criteria. Interventions An 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 measures A 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. Results 6030 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. Conclusions Alerts 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberm4786
JournalThe BMJ
StatePublished - Jan 18 2021

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • General Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Electronic health record alerts for acute kidney injury: Multicenter, randomized clinical trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this