Cited by 75Electronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

An empirical model to estimate the potential impact of medication safety alerts on patient safety, health care utilization, and cost in ambulatory care

Weingart, Saul N.·2009·Archives of Internal Medicine

Abstract

Background Because ambulatory care clinicians override as many as 91% of drug interaction alerts, the potential benefit of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) with decision support is uncertain. Methods We studied 279 476 alerted prescriptions written by 2321 Massachusetts ambulatory care clinicians using a single commercial e-prescribing system from January 1 through June 30, 2006. An expert panel reviewed a sample of common drug interaction alerts, estimating the likelihood and severity of adverse drug events (ADEs) associated with each alert, the likely injury to the patient, and the health care utilization required to address each ADE. We estimated the cost savings due to e-prescribing by using third-party-payer and publicly available information. Results Based on the expert panel's estimates, electronic drug alerts likely prevented 402 (interquartile range [IQR], 133-846) ADEs in 2006, including 49 (14-130) potentially serious, 125 (34-307) significant, and 228 (85-409) minor ADEs. Accepted alerts may have prevented a death in 3 (IQR, 2-13) cases, permanent disability in 14 (3-18), and temporary disability in 31 (10-97). Alerts potentially resulted in 39 (IQR, 14-100) fewer hospitalizations, 34 (6-74) fewer emergency department visits, and 267 (105-541) fewer office visits, for a cost savings of 402,619 USD (IQR, 141,012-1,012,386 USD). Based on the panel's estimates, 331 alerts were required to prevent 1 ADE, and a few alerts (10%) likely accounted for 60% of ADEs an…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.252

Cites

2 of 2 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.
Affiliations
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Weingart, Saul N.
Venue
Archives of Internal Medicine
Published
2009-09-12
Volume
169
Issue
16
Pages
1465
ISSN
0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2110640821
Cited by
75
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
18.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network (American Medical Association) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
medication safety alerts, electronic prescribing, clinical decision support, drug interaction alerts, adverse drug reactions, outpatient care, health care utilization, health care costs, hospitalization reduction, emergency department visits
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Ambulatory Care, Drug Interactions, Humans, Cost Savings, Safety Management, Electronic Prescribing, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

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