Cited by 22Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Evaluation of Harm Associated with High Dose-Range Clinical Decision Support Overrides in the Intensive Care Unit

Open access
Wong, Adrian, Rehr, Christine, Seger, Diane L., Amato, Mary G., Beeler, Patrick E., Slight, Sarah P., Wright, Adam, Bates, David W.·2019·Drug Safety

Abstract

Introduction Medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts have been shown to be effective at reducing adverse drug events (ADEs). However, these alerts are frequently overridden, with limited data linking these overrides to harm. Dose-range checking alerts are a type of CDS alert that could have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. Methods We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of adult ICUs from September 2016 to April 2017. Targeted overridden alerts were triggered when doses greater than or equal to 5% over the maximum dose were prescribed. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of the override, determined by two independent reviewers, using pre-specified criteria formulated by a multidisciplinary group. Overrides which resulted in medication administration were then evaluated for ADEs by chart review. Results The override rate of high dose-range alerts in the ICU was 93.0% (total n = 1525) during the study period. A total of 1418 overridden alerts from 755 unique patients were evaluated for appropriateness (appropriateness rate 88.8%). The most common medication associated with high dose-range alerts was insulin regular infusion (n = 262, 18.5%). The rates of ADEs for the appropriately and inappropriately overridden alerts per 100 overridden alerts were 1.3 and 5.0, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusions Overriding high dose-range CDS alerts was found to be common and often appropriate, suggesting that more intelligent dose checking is needed. Some alerts were clearly inappropriately presented to the provider. Inappropriate overrides were associated with an increased risk of ADEs, compared to appropriately overridden alerts.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40264-018-0756-x

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Alert burden can lead to high rates of alert overrides and physician burnout (both physical and cognitive).

    “Alert burden can lead to high rates of alert overrides and physician burnout (both physical and cognitive).9,16,64–66”

    From Electronic health record activity changes around new decision support implementation: monitoring using audit logs and topic modeling (2025) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Results report that 93.0% of high dose-range alerts were overridden in the studied ICUs, and the Discussion recommends turning off unnecessary warnings. The paper does not report physician burnout, whether physical or cognitive, or establish that alert burden caused the overrides. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wong, A., Rehr, C., Seger, D. L., Amato, M. G., Beeler, P. E., Slight, S. P., Wright, A., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Bates, David W.
Venue
Drug Safety
Published
2018-12-01
Volume
42
Issue
4
Pages
573-579
ISSN
  • 0114-5916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-1942
OpenAlex
W2902213486
Cited by
21
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Drug Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
American College of Clinical Pharmacy Research Institute (2018)
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
clinical decision support alerts, alert override, adverse drug reactions, intensive care unit, insulin infusion, drug safety
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Female, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Medication Errors, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Medical Order Entry Systems, 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