What, if all alerts were specific - estimating the potential impact on drug interaction alert burden
Abstract
Purpose Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) may potentially improve prescribing quality, but are subject to poor user acceptance. Reasons for alert overriding have been identified and counterstrategies have been suggested; however, poor alert specificity, a prominent reason of alert overriding, has not been well addressed. This paper aims at structuring modulators that determine alert specificity and estimating their quantitative impact on alert burden. Methods We developed and summarized optimizing strategies to guarantee the specificity of alerts and applied them to a set of 100 critical and frequent drug interaction (DDI) alerts. Hence, DDI alerts were classified as dynamic, i.e. potentially sensitive to prescription-, co-medication-, or patient-related factors that would change alert severity or render the alert inappropriate compared to static, i.e. always applicable alerts not modulated by cofactors. Results Within the subset of 100 critical DDI alerts, only 10 alerts were considered as static and for 7 alerts, relevant factors are not generally available in today's patient charts or their consideration would not impact alert severity. The vast majority, i.e. 83 alerts, might require a decrease in alert severity due to factors related to the prescription (N=13), the co-medication (N=11), individual patient data (N=36), or combinations of them (N=23). Patient-related factors consisted mainly of three lab values, i.e. renal function, potassium, and therapeutic drug m…
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?
Many organizations are not following these recommendations, in part due to a lack of consensus for whether or not to turn off or modify, or how to modify, alerts.
“Although some organizations have successfully implemented these tools and reduced the number of alerts and overrides,38 other reports have found that many organizations are not following these recommendations, in part due to a lack of consensus for whether or not to turn off or modify, or how to modify, alerts.27,28,39”
From Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
Prior research has found that there are opportunities for improving or turning off CDS alerts to improve patient outcomes.
“Prior research has found that there are opportunities for improving or turning off CDS alerts to improve patient outcomes.25–28”
From Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
A frequently described approach in prior literature involves individuals or committees reviewing EHR utilization logs or dashboards, which are effective at identifying individual alerts with high override rates and alert trends across departments or provider type.
“One of the most frequently described approaches described in prior literature has involved individuals or committees reviewing EHR utilization logs or dashboards, as these are very effective at identifying individual alerts with high override rates, as well as alert trends across departments or provider type.27,28,34,38”
From Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative (2022) · cites this paper as [28]
Cites
The benefits of imperfect diagnostic automation: a synthesis of the literature
Wickens, C. D., & Dixon, S. R. (2007) · Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science · doi:10.1080/14639220500370105 · Cited by 423 · see citing works
The Epidemiology of Prescribing Errors: The Potential Impact of Computerized Prescriber Order Entry
Bobb, A., Gleason, K., Husch, M., Feinglass, J., Yarnold, P. R., & Noskin, G. A. (2004) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.164.7.785 · Cited by 359 · 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
Using AI-generated suggestions from ChatGPT to optimize clinical decision support
Liu, S., Wright, A. P., Patterson, B. L., Wanderer, J. P., Turer, R. W., Nelson, S. D., McCoy, A. B., Sittig, D. F., & Wright, A. (2023) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad072 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
Appropriateness of Overridden Alerts in Computerized Physician Order Entry: Systematic Review
Poly, T. N., Islam, M. M., Yang, H.-C., & Li, Y.-C. (. (2020) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/15653 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Olakotan, O. O., & Mohd Yusof, M. (2021) · Health Informatics Journal · doi:10.1177/14604582211007536 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Assessing the Value of ChatGPT for Clinical Decision Support Optimization
Liu, S., Wright, A. P., Patterson, B. L., Wanderer, J. P., Turer, R. W., Nelson, S. D., McCoy, A. B., Sittig, D. F., & Wright, A. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.02.21.23286254 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative
McCoy, A. B., Russo, E. M., Johnson, K. B., Addison, B., Patel, N., Wanderer, J. P., Mize, D. E., Jackson, J. G., Reese, T. J., Littlejohn, S., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocac027 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Horn, J., & Ueng, S. (2019) · Annals of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1177/1060028019863419 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Seidling, H. M., Klein, U., Schaier, M., Czock, D., Theile, D., Pruszydlo, M. G., Kaltschmidt, J., Mikus, G., & Haefeli, W. E.
- Affiliations
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Haefeli, Walter E.
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-04
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 285-291
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2093764256
- Cited by
- 91
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 21.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01 IS 09027)
- 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 › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- drug interaction alerts, clinical decision support systems, alert burden, knowledge base refinement, concomitant medications, therapeutic drug monitoring, renal function, potassium, prescribing quality
- MeSH terms
- Drug Interactions, Humans, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Safety, Reminder Systems, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
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