Cited by 309Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Overrides of Medication Alerts in Ambulatory Care

Isaac, Thomas, Weissman, Joel S., Davis, Roger B., Massagli, Michael, Cyrulik, Adrienne, Sands, Daniel Z., Weingart, Saul N.·2009·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Electronic prescribing systems with decision support may improve patient safety in ambulatory care by offering drug allergy and drug interaction alerts. However, preliminary studies show that clinicians override most of these alerts. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 233 537 medication safety alerts generated by 2872 clinicians in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania who used a common electronic prescribing system from January 1, 2006, through September 30, 2006. We used multivariate techniques to examine factors associated with alert acceptance. RESULTS: A total of 6.6% of electronic prescription attempts generated alerts. Clinicians accepted 9.2% of drug interaction alerts and 23.0% of allergy alerts. High-severity interactions accounted for most alerts (61.6%); clinicians accepted high-severity alerts slightly more often than moderate- or low-severity interaction alerts (10.4%, 7.3%, and 7.1%, respectively; P < .001). Clinicians accepted 2.2% to 43.1% of high-severity interaction alerts, depending on the classes of interacting medications. In multivariable analyses, we found no difference in alert acceptance among clinicians of different specialties (P = .16). Clinicians were less likely to accept a drug interaction alert if the patient had previously received the alerted medication (odds ratio, 0.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.03). CONCLUSION: Clinicians override most medication alerts, suggesting that current medication safety alerts may be inadequate to protect patient safety.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2008.551

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 309

Authors
Isaac, T., Weissman, J. S., Davis, R. B., Massagli, M., Cyrulik, A., Sands, D. Z., & Weingart, S. N.
Affiliations
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2009-02-09
Volume
169
Issue
3
Pages
305
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2008174801
Cited by
309
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 33
FWCI
71.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
medication alerts, alert override, electronic prescribing, clinical decision support, drug interaction alerts, drug allergy alerts, drug safety, outpatient care, patient safety
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Ambulatory Care, Drug Hypersensitivity, Drug Interactions, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Male, Medication Errors, Medicine, Middle Aged, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Retrospective Studies, Severity of Illness Index, Specialization, United States, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Medical Order Entry Systems, Young Adult

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