Cited by 487Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Physicians' Decisions to Override Computerized Drug Alerts in Primary Care

Weingart, Saul N., Toth, Maria, Sands, Daniel Z., Aronson, Mark D., Davis, Roger B., Phillips, Russell S.·2003·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although computerized physician order entry reduces medication errors among inpatients, little is known about the use of this system in primary care. METHODS: We calculated the override rate among 3481 consecutive alerts generated at 5 adult primary care practices that use a common computerized physician order entry system for prescription writing. For detailed review, we selected a random sample of 67 alerts in which physicians did not prescribe an alerted medication and 122 alerts that resulted in a written prescription. We identified factors associated with the physicians' decisions to override a medication alert, and determined whether an adverse drug event (ADE) occurred. RESULTS: Physicians overrode 91.2% of drug allergy and 89.4% of high-severity drug interaction alerts. In the multivariable analysis using the medical chart review sample (n = 189), physicians were less likely to prescribe an alerted medication if the prescriber was a house officer (odds ratio [OR], 0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.84) and if the patient had many drug allergies (OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53-0.93). They were more likely to override alerts for renewals compared with new prescriptions (OR, 17.74; 95% CI, 5.60-56.18). We found no ADEs in cases where physicians observed the alert and 3 ADEs among patients with alert overrides, a nonsignificant difference (P =.55). Physician reviewers judged that 36.5% of the alerts were inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Few physicians changed their prescription in response to a drug allergy or interaction alert, and there were few ADEs, suggesting that the threshold for alerting was set too low. Computerized physician order entry systems should suppress alerts for renewals of medication combinations that patients currently tolerate.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinte.163.21.2625

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Weingart, S. N., Toth, M., Sands, D. Z., Aronson, M. D., Davis, R. B., & Phillips, R. S.
Affiliations
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2003-11-24
Volume
163
Issue
21
Pages
2625
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044859414
Cited by
487
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 38
FWCI
34.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1K08 HS 11644-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
alert override, computerized physician order entry, primary care, medication errors, drug allergy alerts, drug interaction alerts, adverse drug reactions, prescriber decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Boston, Drug Interactions, Drug Utilization, Female, Humans, Internal Medicine, Male, Medication Errors, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Primary Health Care, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Safety Management, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review