Cited by 29Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Mixed methods study of medication-related decision support alerts experienced during electronic prescribing for inpatients at an English hospital

Open access
Bell, Helen, Garfield, Sara, Khosla, Sonia, Patel, Chimnay, Franklin, Bryony Dean·2019·European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Electronic prescribing and medication administration systems are being introduced in many hospitals worldwide, with varying degrees of clinical decision support including pop-up alerts. Previous research suggests that prescribers override a high proportion of alerts, but little research has been carried out in the UK. Our objective was to explore rates of alert overriding in different prescribing situations and prescribers' perceptions around the use of decision support alerts in a UK hospital. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study on three cardiology wards, directly observing medical and non-medical prescribers' alert override rates during both ward round and non-ward round prescribing; observations were followed by semi-structured interviews with prescribers, which were then transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: test). While respondents acknowledged that alerts could be useful, several also described negative unintended consequences. Many were of the view that usefulness of alerts was limited if the alert was reminding them to do something they would do anyway, or suggesting something they did not feel was relevant. Findings suggest that targeting, timing and additional features of alerts are critical factors in determining whether they are acted on or overridden. CONCLUSION: The majority of alerts were overridden. Alerts may be less likely to be overridden if they are built into the prescribing workflow.

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/ejhpharm-2017-001483

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • Previous qualitative studies to better understand stakeholder perspectives on inpatient CDS and interruptive alerts have been limited.

    “Previous qualitative studies to better understand stakeholder perspectives on inpatient CDS and interruptive alerts have been limited.”

    From Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Introduction says that most research on CDS alerts was conducted outside the UK and that, to the authors’ knowledge, no studies had been carried out in a UK adult setting. The Methods describe interviews exploring inpatient prescribers’ perspectives. This supports a gap in UK adult research, but not the broader claim that previous qualitative studies of stakeholder perspectives were limited generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Few qualitative CDS studies of different stakeholder perspectives have been conducted in the inpatient setting in the modern-day era of vendor-dominated EHRs.

    “Few qualitative CDS studies of different stakeholder perspectives have been conducted in the inpatient setting in the modern-day era of vendor-dominated EHRs. 24”

    From Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support (2026) · cites this paper as [24]

    The Methods (Study design; page not provided) describe qualitative interviews with medical and non-medical prescribers about inpatient CDS alerts. The Introduction says little research had been conducted in the UK and, to the authors’ knowledge, none in a UK adult setting. It does not establish that few such studies exist across inpatient settings generally or address a vendor-dominated EHR era. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Bell et al demonstrated optimizing recipient targeting, timing, and alert design may minimize alert overrides in the inpatient cardiology setting.

    “Bell et al demonstrated optimizing recipient targeting, timing, and alert design may minimize alert overrides in the inpatient cardiology setting.”

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: 19

  1. [1]Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, et al Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330: 765 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F 15767266 PMC555881 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Ammenwerth E, Schnell-Inderst P, Machan C, et al The effect of electronic prescribing on medication errors and adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15: 585– 600. 10.1197/jamia.M2667 18579832 PMC2528040 · DOI
  3. [3]Eslami S, Abu-Hanna A, de Keizer NF Evaluation of outpatient computerized physician medication order entry systems: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14: 400– 6. 10.1197/jamia.M2238 17460137 PMC2244893 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1409– 16. 10.1001/archinte.163.12.1409 12824090 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Prgomet M, Li L, Niazkhani Z, et al Impact of commercial computerized provider order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on medication errors, length of stay, and mortality in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24: 413– 22. 10.1093/jamia/ocw145 28395016 PMC7651905 · DOI
  6. [6]Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Williams R, et al Evaluation of medium-term consequences of implementing commercial computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support prescribing systems in two ’early adopter' hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2014; 21: e194– e202. 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002252 24431334 PMC4173168 · DOI
  7. [7]Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005; 293: 1223– 38. 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223 15755945 · DOI · Paper page
  8. [8]Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, et al The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009: CD001096 10.1002/14651858.CD001096.pub2 19588323 PMC4171964 · DOI
  9. [9]Baysari MT, Westbrook JI, Richardson KL, et al The influence of computerized decision support on prescribing during ward-rounds: are the decision-makers targeted? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 754– 9. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000135 21676939 PMC3197993 · DOI
  10. [10]Embi PJ, Leonard AC Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19: e145– e148. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000743 22534081 PMC3392862 · DOI · Paper page
  11. [11]van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, et al Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 138– 47. 10.1197/jamia.M1809 16357358 PMC1447540 · DOI · Paper page
  12. [13]Scott GP, Shah P, Wyatt JC, et al Making electronic prescribing alerts more effective: scenario-based experimental study in junior doctors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: 789– 98. 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000199 21836158 PMC3197997 · DOI
  13. [14]Wipfli R, Betrancourt M, Guardia A, et al A qualitative analysis of prescription activity and alert usage in a computerized physician order entry system. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 169: 940– 4. 21893884
  14. [15]Brock TP, Franklin BD Differences in pharmacy terminology and practice between the United Kingdom and the United States. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64: 1541– 6. 10.2146/ajhp060444 17617506 · DOI
  15. [16]Mozaffar H, Williams R, Cresswell KM. et al The challenges of implementing packaged hospital electronic prescribing and medicine administration systems in UK Hospitals: premature purchase of immature solutions: Aanestad M, Risot M, Hanseth O, Vassilakopoulou P, Information Infrastructures within European Health Care: Working with the Installed Base. Health Informatics. Cham: Springer, 2017: 129– 50. 31314327
  16. [18]Jani YH, Barber N, Wong IC Characteristics of clinical decision support alert overrides in an electronic prescribing system at a tertiary care paediatric hospital. Int J Pharm Pract 2011; 19: 363– 6. 10.1111/j.2042-7174.2011.00132.x 21899617 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [19]Topaz M, Seger DL, Slight SP, et al Rising drug allergy alert overrides in electronic health records: an observational retrospective study of a decade of experience. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23: 601– 8. 10.1093/jamia/ocv143 26578227 PMC11740751 · DOI
  18. [20]Nanji KC, Seger DL, Slight SP, et al Medication-related clinical decision support alert overrides in inpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25: 476– 81. 10.1093/jamia/ocx115 29092059 PMC7646870 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [21]Koskela T, Sandström S, Mäkinen J, et al User perspectives on an electronic decision-support tool performing comprehensive medication reviews - a focus group study with physicians and nurses. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16: 6 10.1186/s12911-016-0245-z 26801630 PMC4724080 · DOI

Cited by

Authors
Bell, H., Garfield, S., Khosla, S., Patel, C., & Franklin, B. D.
Affiliations
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Garfield, Sara
Venue
European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2018-05-19
Volume
26
Issue
6
Pages
318-322
ISSN
  • 2047-9956 (ISSN-L)
  • 2047-9964
OpenAlex
W2804467287
Cited by
29
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Imperial College London
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
clinical decision support alerts, electronic prescribing, medication administration systems, inpatient prescribing, prescriber perceptions, cardiology ward

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