Cited by 26Electronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions

The Effect of Patient-Specific Drug-Drug Interaction Alerting on the Frequency of Alerts: A Pilot Study

Horn, John, Ueng, Stephen·2019·Annals of Pharmacotherapy

Abstract

Background: False-positive drug-drug interaction alerts are frequent and result in alert fatigue that can result in prescribers bypassing important alerts. Development of a method to present patient-appropriate alerts is needed to help restore alert relevance. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the potential for patient-specific drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts to reduce alert burden. Methods: This project was conducted at a tertiary care medical center. Seven of the most frequently encountered DDI alerts were chosen for developing patient-specific, algorithm-based DDI alerts. For each of the DDI pairs, 2 algorithms featuring different values for modifying factors were made. DDI alerts from the 7 drug pairs were collected over 30 days. Outcome measures included the number of DDI alerts generated before and after patient-specific algorithm application to the same patients over the same time period. Results: A total of 14 algorithms were generated, and each was evaluated by comparing the number of alerts generated by our existing, customized clinical decision support (CDS) software and the patient-specific algorithms. The CDS DDI alerting software generated an average of 185.3 alerts per drug pair over the 30-day study period. Patient-specific algorithms reduced the number of alerts resulting from the algorithms by 11.3% to 93.5%. Conclusion and Relevance: Patient-specific DDI alerting is an innovative and effective approach to reduce the number of DDI alerts, may potentially increase the appropriateness of alerts, and may decrease the potential for alert fatigue.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1060028019863419

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horn, J., & Ueng, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Alameda Health System (US)
Corresponding author
Horn, John
Venue
Annals of Pharmacotherapy
Published
2019-07-11
Volume
53
Issue
11
Pages
1087-1092
ISSN
  • 0012-6578 (ISSN-L)
  • 1060-0280
  • 1542-6270
OpenAlex
W2957625677
Cited by
26
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
4.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of Pharmacotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Keywords
drug-drug interactions, clinical decision support, alarm fatigue, false positive alerts, alert burden, electronic prescribing
MeSH terms
Drug Interactions, Humans, Pilot Projects, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Medical Order Entry Systems, Electronic Health Records, Patient-Specific Modeling

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