Cited by 138Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication Errors

A framework for evaluating the appropriateness of clinical decision support alerts and responses

Open access
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

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Alerting systems, a type of clinical decision support, are increasingly prevalent in healthcare, yet few studies have concurrently measured the appropriateness of alerts with provider responses to alerts. Recent reports of suboptimal alert system design and implementation highlight the need for better evaluation to inform future designs. The authors present a comprehensive framework for evaluating the clinical appropriateness of synchronous, interruptive medication safety alerts. METHODS: Through literature review and iterative testing, metrics were developed that describe successes, justifiable overrides, provider non-adherence, and unintended adverse consequences of clinical decision support alerts. The framework was validated by applying it to a medication alerting system for patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). RESULTS: Through expert review, the framework assesses each alert episode for appropriateness of the alert display and the necessity and urgency of a clinical response. Primary outcomes of the framework include the false positive alert rate, alert override rate, provider non-adherence rate, and rate of provider response appropriateness. Application of the framework to evaluate an existing AKI medication alerting system provided a more complete understanding of the process outcomes measured in the AKI medication alerting system. The authors confirmed that previous alerts and provider responses were most often appropriate. CONCLUSION: The new evaluation model offers a potentially effective method for assessing the clinical appropriateness of synchronous interruptive medication alerts prior to evaluating patient outcomes in a comparative trial. More work can determine the generalizability of the framework for use in other settings and other alert types.

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 · 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000185

Cites

39 of 39 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?

  • Few studies have evaluated the appropriateness of alert overrides, and little prior data exist about the appropriateness of overrides by alert type.

    “Few studies have evaluated the appropriateness of alert overrides, 24 and little prior data exist about the appropriateness of overrides by alert type.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCoy, A. B., Waitman, L. R., Lewis, J. B., Wright, J. A., Choma, D. P., Miller, R. A., & Peterson, J. F.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
McCoy, A. B.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2012-05-01
Volume
19
Issue
3
Pages
346-352
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W1833822692
Cited by
138
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 5
FWCI
15.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM009965, T15LM007450)
  • National Center for Research Resources (KL2RR024977, TL1RR024978, UL1RR024975)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
clinical decision support alerts, interruptive alerts, medication safety alerts, alert override, false positive alerts, acute kidney injury
MeSH terms
Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Medical Audit, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, Models, Theoretical, Retrospective Studies, Tennessee, User-Computer Interface, Single-Blind Method, Reminder Systems, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Medical Order Entry Systems, Electronic Health Records, Acute Kidney Injury

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