An empirical model to estimate the potential impact of medication safety alerts on patient safety, health care utilization, and cost in ambulatory care
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Responding clinicians at our site expressed mixed feelings about interruptive alerts, similar to findings of previous studies.
“Overall, responding clinicians at our site expressed mixed feelings about interruptive alerts, similar to findings of previous studies. 11”
From Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Interruptive alerts are a commonly used form of CDS and previous research has shown negative unintended consequences for end-users.
“Although it is difficult to quantify interruptive alert burden, they are a commonly used form of CDS, and previous research has shown negative unintended consequences for end-users.”
From Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support (2026) · cites this paper as [11]
Cites
Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use
Fink, A., Kosecoff, J., Chassin, M., & Brook, R. H. (1984) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.74.9.979 · Cited by 2,089 · see citing works
Improving Acceptance of Computerized Prescribing Alerts in Ambulatory Care
Shah, N. R., Seger, A. C., Seger, D. L., Fiskio, J. M., Kuperman, G. J., Blumenfeld, B., Recklet, E. G., Bates, D. W., & Gandhi, T. K. (2006) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1197/jamia.m1868 · Cited by 353 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sarkar, U., Karter, A. J., Liu, J. Y., Moffet, H. H., Adler, N. E., & Schillinger, D. (2010) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1389-7 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Olakotan, O. O., & Mohd Yusof, M. (2021) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582211007536 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Customizing clinical decision support to prevent excessive drug–drug interaction alerts
Horn, J. R., Hansten, P. D., Osborn, J. D., Wareham, P., & Somani, S. (2011) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.2146/ajhp100465 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
A model curriculum for an emergency medicine residency rotation in clinical informatics
Baker, C., Maniam, N., Schnapp, B., Genes, N., Nielson, J., Mohan, V., Hersh, W., & Slovis, B. (2022) · Journal of Education and Teaching in Emergency Medicine · doi:10.5070/m57459214 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support
Khan, A., & Schnipper, J. (2026) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.1055/a-2955-9555
- Authors
- Weingart, S. N.
- Affiliations
- Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Weingart, Saul N.
- ORCID
- Weingart, Saul N.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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