Effect of computerized provider order entry with clinical decision support on adverse drug events in the long-term care setting
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of computerized provider order entry with clinical decision support for preventing adverse drug events in long‐term care. DESIGN: Cluster‐randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Two large long‐term care facilities. PATIENTS: One thousand one hundred eighteen long‐term care residents of 29 resident care units. INTERVENTION: The 29 resident care units, each with computerized provider order entry, were randomized to having a clinical decision support system (intervention units) or not (control units). MEASUREMENTS: The number of adverse drug events, severity of events, and whether the events were preventable. RESULTS: Within intervention units, 411 adverse drug events occurred over 3,803 resident‐months of observation time; 152 (37.0%) were deemed preventable. Within control units, there were 340 adverse drug events over 3,257 resident‐months of observation time; 126 (37.1%) were characterized as preventable. There were 10.8 adverse drug events per 100 resident‐months and 4.0 preventable events per 100 resident‐months on intervention units. There were 10.4 adverse drug events per 100 resident‐months and 3.9 preventable events per 100 resident‐months on control units. Comparing intervention and control units, the adjusted rate ratios were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.92–1.23) for all adverse drug events and 1.02 (95% CI=0.81–1.30) for preventable adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Computerized provider order entry with decision support did not reduce the adverse drug event rate or preventable adverse drug event rate in the long‐term care setting. Alert burden, limited scope of the alerts, and a need to more fully integrate clinical and laboratory information may have affected efficacy.
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?
Evaluations of CDS have not consistently demonstrated improved patient outcomes.
“Despite initial promise of success and widespread CDS implementations, evaluations of CDS have not consistently demonstrated improved patient outcomes.9–12”
From Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative (2022) · cites this paper as [9]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Effect of Clinical Decision-Support Systems: A Systematic Review
Bright, T. J., Wong, A., Dhurjati, R., Bristow, E., Bastian, L., Coeytaux, R. R., Samsa, G., Hasselblad, V., Williams, J. W., Musty, M. D., et al. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450 · Cited by 1,200 · see citing works
A framework for evaluating the appropriateness of clinical decision support alerts and responses
McCoy, A. B., Waitman, L. R., Lewis, J. B., Wright, J. A., Choma, D. P., Miller, R. A., & Peterson, J. F. (2012) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000185 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Scott, I. A., Pillans, P. I., Barras, M., & Morris, C. (2018) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/2042098618784809 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Damiani, G., Altamura, G., Zedda, M., Nurchis, M. C., Aulino, G., Heidar Alizadeh, A., Cazzato, F., Della Morte, G., Caputo, M., Grassi, S., et al. (2023) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065301 · Cited by 44 · 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
Measuring Harm in Health Care: Optimizing Adverse Event Review
Walsh, K. E., Harik, P., Mazor, K. M., Perfetto, D., Anatchkova, M., Biggins, C., Wagner, J., Schoettker, P. J., Firneno, C., Klugman, R., et al. (2017) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0000000000000679 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gurwitz, J. H., Field, T. S., Rochon, P., Judge, J., Harrold, L. R., Bell, C. M., Lee, M., White, K., LaPrino, J., Erramuspe‐Mainard, J., DeFlorio, M., Gavendo, L., Baril, J. L., Reed, G., & Bates, D. W.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gurwitz, Jerry H.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2225-2233
- ISSN
- 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5415
- OpenAlex
- W2162518516
- Cited by
- 106
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 17.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS15430, HS010481)
- 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
- computerized physician order entry, clinical decision support, adverse drug reactions, long-term care, nursing homes, preventable adverse drug events, drug safety, clinical alerts, alert burden, elderly residents
- MeSH terms
- Aged, 80 and over, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Long-Term Care, Male, Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Systems, Medical Order Entry Systems
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