Automated Dispensing Cabinet Overrides—An Evaluation of Necessity in a Pediatric Emergency Department
Abstract
Objective Automated dispensing cabinets, or ADCs, are often used at health care facilities to aid in the medication-use process. Although ADCs minimize certain medication errors, they introduce a new type of error involving overrides. Although helpful when used appropriately in emergencies, overrides bypass pharmacist verification and increase potential for patient harm through drug-drug interactions, medication allergies, inappropriate dosing, and more. The purpose of this study was to evaluate automated dispensing cabinets override pulls in a pediatric hospital's emergency department. The authors sought to discover whether overridden medications were being administered before verification (indicating it was needed emergently, thus justifying override) or after verification (indicating the override did not result in quicker administration and/or the medication was not emergent). Methods This was a retrospective, observational study. Data were collected from electronic health record reports from a 343-bed pediatric hospital's emergency department from October 13, 2019, to December 22, 2019. Results A total of 445 override pulls were identified during this time, and after data analysis, 99 override pulls remained in the data set. Overall, time from input of prescription into the electronic medical record to medication override was approximately 4 minutes. Pharmacist verification also took a median of four minutes after prescription input. However, administration took twice as…
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?
The unnecessarily frequent use of the override function was described as a challenge and explored in many studies; safety concerns associated with unnecessary override use was a key concern.
“The unnecessarily frequent use of override function was described as a challenge and explored in many studies.11,42,43,45”
From Benefits and challenges associated with implementation and ongoing use of automated dispensing cabinet for medicines: A scoping review (2025) · cites this paper as [42]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Jung, Y. Y., Walsh, Á., Patel, J., & Lai, K. (2025) · Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.rcsop.2025.100599 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“42 Rhodes et al. (2019) suggested indication-based override access as a way of potentially preventing MAEs.”
- Authors
- Paterson, E. P., Manning, K. B., Schmidt, M. D., & Provine, A. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Emergency Nursing
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-05
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-327
- ISSN
- 0099-1767 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4229012452
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3
- FWCI
- 1.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Emergency Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacy and Medical Practices
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- automated dispensing cabinets, medication errors, medication administration, pediatric emergency department, drug safety, drug-drug interactions, drug hypersensitivity, inappropriate dosing
- MeSH terms
- Child, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, Pharmacists, Retrospective Studies
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