Cited by 75Electronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

Variation in high-priority drug-drug interaction alerts across institutions and electronic health records

Open access
McEvoy, Dustin S, Sittig, Dean F, Hickman, Thu-Trang, Aaron, Skye, Ai, Angela, Amato, Mary, Bauer, David W, Fraser, Gregory M +15 more·2017·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: The United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology sponsored the development of a “high-priority” list of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) to be used for clinical decision support. We assessed current adoption of this list and current alerting practice for these DDIs with regard to alert implementation (presence or absence of an alert) and display (alert appearance as interruptive or passive). Materials and methods: We conducted evaluations of electronic health records (EHRs) at a convenience sample of health care organizations across the United States using a standardized testing protocol with simulated orders. Results: Evaluations of 19 systems were conducted at 13 sites using 14 different EHRs. Across systems, 69% of the high-priority DDI pairs produced alerts. Implementation and display of the DDI alerts tested varied between systems, even when the same EHR vendor was used. Across the drug pairs evaluated, implementation and display of DDI alerts differed, ranging from 27% (4/15) to 93% (14/15) implementation. Discussion: Currently, there is no standard of care covering which DDI alerts to implement or how to display them to providers. Opportunities to improve DDI alerting include using differential displays based on DDI severity, establishing improved lists of clinically significant DDIs, and thoroughly reviewing organizational implementation decisions regarding DDIs. Conclusion: DDI alerting is clinically important but not standardized. There is significant room for improvement and standardization around evidence-based DDIs.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocw114

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 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?

  • 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 [39]

    The Discussion (‘A standard of care for DDI alerts?’) reports inconsistent adoption of the proposed high-priority DDI list and a lack of agreement about which alerts to implement and how to display them. It does not establish that organizations failed to follow recommendations because of that lack of agreement, or specifically assess decisions to turn off or modify alerts. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. [1]Chiatti C Bustacchini S Furneri G The economic burden of inappropriate drug prescribing, lack of adherence and compliance, adverse drug events in older people: a systematic review. Drug Saf 2012; 35 (Suppl 1): 73– 87. 23446788
  2. [2]Wu C Bell CM Wodchis WP Incidence and economic burden of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients in Ontario emergency departments: a retrospective study. Drug Saf 2012; 35(9): 769– 781. 22823502 PMC3714138
  3. [3]Makary MA Daniel M Medical error: the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016; 353: i2139. 27143499
  4. [4]Aspden P Wolcott J Bootman JL Cronenwett LR, editors. Preventing medication errors: quality chasm series. National Academies Press; 2006 Dec 11.
  5. [5]Lazarou J Pomeranz BH Corey PN Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998; 279(15): 1200– 1205. 9555760
  6. [6]Classen DC Phansalkar S Bates DW Critical drug-drug interactions for use in electronic health records systems with computerized physician order entry: review of leading approaches. J Patient Saf 2011; 7(2): 61– 65. 21577077
  7. [7]Nuckols TK Smith-Spangler C Morton SC The effectiveness of computerized order entry at reducing preventable adverse drug events and medication errors in hospital settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2014; 3(1): 1. 24894078 PMC4096499
  8. [8]Bates DW Teich JM Lee J The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6(4): 313– 321. 10428004 PMC61372
  9. [9]Horsky J Phansalkar S Desai A Bell D Middleton B Design of decision support interventions for medication prescribing. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82(6): 492– 503. 23490305
  10. [10]McCoy AB Waitman LR Lewis JB A framework for evaluating the appropriateness of clinical decision support alerts and responses. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19(3): 346– 352. 21849334 PMC3341775
  11. [11]Weingart SN Simchowitz B Shiman L Clinicians' assessments of electronic medication safety alerts in ambulatory care. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169(17): 1627– 1632. 19786683
  12. [16]Classen DC Bates DW Finding the meaning in meaningful use. N Engl J Med 2011; 365(9): 855– 858. 21879906
  13. [17]Weingart SN Seger AC Feola N Heffernan J Schiff G Isaac T Electronic drug interaction alerts in ambulatory care. Drug Saf 2011; 34(7): 587– 593. 21663334
  14. [18]Slight SP Berner ES Galanter W Meaningful use of electronic health records: experiences from the field and future opportunities. JMIR Med Inform 2015; 3(3): e30. 26385598 PMC4704893
  15. [19]Phansalkar S Desai AA Bell D High-priority drug-drug interactions for use in electronic health records. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19(5): 735– 743. 22539083 PMC3422823
  16. [20]Harper MB Longhurst CA McGuire TL Tarrago R Desai BR Patterson A Core drug-drug interaction alerts for inclusion in pediatric electronic health records with computerized prescriber order entry. J Patient Saf 2014; 10(1): 59– 63. 24522227
  17. [22]Wright A Aaron S Sittig DF Testing electronic health records in the “production” environment: an essential step in the journey to a safe and effective healthcare system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocw039. PMC5201179 27107450 · DOI
  18. [23]Abarca J Malone DC Armstrong EP Concordance of severity ratings provided in four drug interaction compendia. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2004; 44(2): 136– 141. 15098847
  19. [24]Ramos G Guaraldo L Japiassú A Bozza F Comparison of two databases to detect potential drug-drug interactions between prescriptions of HIV/AIDS patients in critical care. J Clin Pharm Ther 2015; 40(1): 63– 67. 25329640
  20. [25]Strom BL Schinnar R Aberra F Unintended effects of a computerized physician order entry nearly hard-stop alert to prevent a drug interaction: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170(17): 1578– 83. 20876410
  21. [26]Ammenwerth E Hackl WO Riedmann D Jung M Contextualization of automatic alerts during electronic prescription: researchers' and users' opinions on useful context factors. Stud Health Technol Inform 2010; 169: 920– 4. 21893880
  22. [28]Patapovas A Dormann H Sedlmayr B Medication safety and knowledge-based functions: a stepwise approach against information overload. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 76(S1): 14– 24. 24007449 PMC3781676
  23. [29]Paterno MD Maviglia SM Gorman PN Tiering drug-drug interaction alerts by severity increases compliance rates. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16(1): 40– 46. 18952941 PMC2605599
  24. [30]Ash JS Sittig DF McMullen CK Studying the vendor perspective on clinical decision support. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 80– 87. 22195058 PMC3243293
  25. [31]Ong MS Coiera E Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical alerts: a signal detection approach. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2011; 2011: 1036– 44. 22195164 PMC3243147
  26. [32]Gaba DM Howard SK Fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(16): 1249– 1255. 12393823
  27. [33]Smithburger PL Buckley MS Bejian S Burenheide K Kane-Gill SL A critical evaluation of clinical decision support for the detection of drug-drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2011; 10(6): 871– 882. 21542665
  28. [34]Ridgely MS Greenberg MD Too many alerts, too much liability: sorting through the malpractice implications of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support. St Louis U J Health Law Policy 2011; 5: 257.
  29. [35]Singh K Wright A Clinical decision support. In: Finnell JT Dixon BE Clinical Informatics Study Guide Heidelberg: Springer; 2016: 111– 133.
  30. [36]Payne TH Hines LE Chan RC Recommendations to improve the usability of drug-drug interaction clinical decision support alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22(6): 1243– 1250. 25829460 PMC11737836

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McEvoy, D. S., Sittig, D. F., Hickman, T.-T., Aaron, S., Ai, A., Amato, M., Bauer, D. W., Fraser, G. M., Harper, J., Kennemer, A., Krall, M. A., Lehmann, C. U., Malhotra, S., Murphy, D. R., O’Kelley, B., Samal, L., Schreiber, R., Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Vartian, C. V., Westmorland, J., McCoy, A. B., & Wright, A.
Affiliations
  • Partners Healthcare, Wellesley, Massachusetts
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (US)
  • Memorial Hermann (US)
  • WVP Health Authority, Salem, Oregon
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • Weill Cornell Medicine (US)
  • Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
  • Women’s Health Specialists of Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri
  • Geisinger Health System (US)
  • HCA Healthcare (US)
  • Tulane University (US)
Corresponding author
Wright, Adam
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2016-08-28
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
331-338
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2513419267
Cited by
75
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12
FWCI
16.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01LM011966)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
drug-drug interactions, clinical decision support, electronic health records, drug safety
MeSH terms
Data Display, Drug Interactions, Humans, United States, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Medical Order Entry Systems, Electronic Health Records

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