Cited by 26Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Evaluation of medication dose alerts in pediatric inpatients

Scharnweber, Corinna, Lau, Brandyn D., Mollenkopf, Nicole, Thiemann, David R., Veltri, Michael A., Lehmann, Christoph U.·2013·International Journal of Medical Informatics

Abstract

Objective This study evaluates the impact of 12,093 consecutive dose alerts generated by a computerized provider order entry system on pediatric medication ordering.Patients and methods All medication orders entered and all resulting medication dose alerts at the Johns Hopkins Children's Medical and Surgical Center in 2010, were retrospectively evaluated. Inclusion criteria were hospitalized patients less than 21 years old. There were no exclusion criteria.Results During 2010, there were 7738 admissions for 5553 unique patients. A total of 182,308 medication orders for 1092 unique medications were submitted by providers. Six percent (11,155) of orders or order attempts generated alerts for 2046 patients and 524 medications. Two categories of alerts were analyzed: dose range alerts and informational alerts. 73.4% (8187) of all alerts were dose range alerts, with a compliance rate of 8.5% (694); 26.6% (2968) were informational alerts, with a compliance rate of 5.5% (163).Conclusions We found that underdosing alerts provide less value to providers than overdosing alerts. However, the low compliance with the alerts should trigger the evaluation of clinical practice behavior and the existing alert thresholds. Informational alerts noting the absence of established dosing guidelines had little effect on provider behavior and should be avoided when building a dose range alert system.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.04.002

Cites

38 of 38 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

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scharnweber, C., Lau, B. D., Mollenkopf, N., Thiemann, D. R., Veltri, M. A., & Lehmann, C. U.
Affiliations
  • Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
Lehmann, Christoph U.
Venue
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-08
Volume
82
Issue
8
Pages
676-683
ISSN
1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2040218371
Cited by
26
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3
FWCI
5.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Medical Informatics (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 › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
computerized physician order entry, hospitalized children, alarm thresholds, dosing recommendations, medication ordering
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Male, Medication Errors, Reminder Systems, Medical Order Entry Systems, Drug Dosage Calculations, Young Adult, Tertiary Care Centers

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