Cited by 226Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication Errors

A review of human factors principles for the design and implementation of medication safety alerts in clinical information systems

Open access
Phansalkar, Shobha, Edworthy, Judy, Hellier, Elizabeth, Seger, Diane L, Schedlbauer, Angela, Avery, Anthony J, Bates, David W·2010·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

The objective of this review is to describe the implementation of human factors principles for the design of alerts in clinical information systems. First, we conduct a review of alarm systems to identify human factors principles that are employed in the design and implementation of alerts. Second, we review the medical informatics literature to provide examples of the implementation of human factors principles in current clinical information systems using alerts to provide medication decision support. Last, we suggest actionable recommendations for delivering effective clinical decision support using alerts. A review of studies from the medical informatics literature suggests that many basic human factors principles are not followed, possibly contributing to the lack of acceptance of alerts in clinical information systems. We evaluate the limitations of current alerting philosophies and provide recommendations for improving acceptance of alerts by incorporating human factors principles in their design.

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/jamia.2010.005264

Cites

73 of 73 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: 14

  1. Peterson JF, Kuperman GJ, Shek C, et al. Physician responses to life-threatening drug-drug interaction alerts. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:212.
  2. Adams A, Edworthy J. Quantifying and predicting the effects of basic text display variables on the perceived urgency of warning labels. Ergonomics 1995;38:2221e38.
  3. Wogalter MS, Silver NC. Arousal strength of signal words. Forensic Rep 1990;3:407e20.
  4. Wogalter MS, Kalsher MJ, Frederick LJ, et al. Hazard level perceptions of warning components and configurations. Int J Cogn Ergon 1998;2:123e43.
  5. Hellier EJ, Wright DB, Edworthy J, et al. On the stability of the arousal strength of signal words. Appl Cogn Psychol 2000;14:577e92.
  6. Riley M, Cochran D, Ballard J. Investigation into the preferred shapes for warning labels. Hum Factors Aerospace Safety 1982;24:737e42.
  7. Edworthy J, Hellier EJ, Lambell N, et al. Linguistic and location effects in compliance to pesticide warning labels. Hum Factors 2004;46:1e21.
  8. Johnson-Laird P. Mental models: towards a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University press, 1983.
  9. Agutter J, Syroid N, Drews F, et al, eds. Metaphor graphic display for cardiovascular system. Proceedings of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Meeting, New Orleans, Louisiana, October 13e17, 2001. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.
  10. Killbridge P, Welebob E, Classon D. Developing the Leapfrog methodology for evaluating hospital implemented inpatient computerised physician order entry system. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15:81e4.
  11. Luo J. Electronic prescribing systems with computerised decision support. Prim Psychiatry 2006;13:19e21.
  12. Goundry-Smith J. Electronic prescribingdexperience in the UK and and system design issues. The Pharmacological Journal 2006;277:485e9.
  13. Bobb A, Gleason K, Husch R, et al. Epidemiology of prescribing errors. Arch Intern Med 2004;164:785e92.
  14. Robezieks A. Less is more. Mod Healthcare 2006;36:31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phansalkar, S., Edworthy, J., Hellier, E., Seger, D. L., Schedlbauer, A., Avery, A. J., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Phansalkar, Shobha
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2010-09
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
493-501
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2101049671
Cited by
226
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 10
FWCI
2.13
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)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
medication safety alerts, human factors, clinical decision support, clinical information systems, alarm system, alert design, medication errors
MeSH terms
Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Ergonomics, 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