Cited by 179Electronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Medication-related clinical decision support alert overrides in inpatients

Open access
Nanji, Karen C, Seger, Diane L, Slight, Sarah P, Amato, Mary G, Beeler, Patrick E, Her, Qoua L, Dalleur, Olivia, Eguale, Tewodros +8 more·2018·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: To define the types and numbers of inpatient clinical decision support alerts, measure the frequency with which they are overridden, and describe providers’ reasons for overriding them and the appropriateness of those reasons. Materials and Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of medication-related clinical decision support alerts over a 3-year period at a 793-bed tertiary-care teaching institution. We measured the rate of alert overrides, the rate of overrides by alert type, the reasons cited for overrides, and the appropriateness of those reasons. Results: Overall, 73.3% of patient allergy, drug-drug interaction, and duplicate drug alerts were overridden, though the rate of overrides varied by alert type (P < .0001). About 60% of overrides were appropriate, and that proportion also varied by alert type (P < .0001). Few overrides of renal- (2.2%) or age-based (26.4%) medication substitutions were appropriate, while most duplicate drug (98%), patient allergy (96.5%), and formulary substitution (82.5%) alerts were appropriate. Discussion: Despite warnings of potential significant harm, certain categories of alert overrides were inappropriate >75% of the time. The vast majority of duplicate drug, patient allergy, and formulary substitution alerts were appropriate, suggesting that these categories of alerts might be good targets for refinement to reduce alert fatigue. Conclusion: Almost three-quarters of alerts were overridden, and 40% of the overrides were not appropriate. Future research should optimize alert types and frequencies to increase their clinical relevance, reducing alert fatigue so that important alerts are not inappropriately overridden.

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/ocx115

Cites

51 of 51 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?

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: 1

  1. [21]21. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. EHR Incentives & Certification: Meaningful Use Definition & Objectives. Washington, DC; 2015[updated February 2015]. www.healthit.gov/providers-professionals/meaningful-use-definition-objectives. Accessed January 28 2017. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nanji, K. C., Seger, D. L., Slight, S. P., Amato, M. G., Beeler, P. E., Her, Q. L., Dalleur, O., Eguale, T., Wong, A., Silvers, E. R., Swerdloff, M., Hussain, S. T., Maniam, N., Fiskio, J. M., Dykes, P. C., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Nanji, Karen C
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2017-10-27
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
476-481
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2765920053
Cited by
179
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 11
FWCI
22.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (148619)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (U19HS021094, K08 HS024764)
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 › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
clinical decision support alerts, alert override, medication alerts, alarm fatigue, drug-drug interaction alerts, hospitalized patients
MeSH terms
Alert Fatigue, Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Drug Hypersensitivity, Drug Interactions, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Medical Order Entry Systems, Meaningful Use

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