Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 467

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detecting Adverse Events Using Information Technology

Open access
Bates, David W., Evans, R. Scott, Murff, Harvey, Stetson, Peter D., Pizziferri, Lisa, Hripcsak, George·2003·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

CONTEXT: Although patient safety is a major problem, most health care organizations rely on spontaneous reporting, which detects only a small minority of adverse events. As a result, problems with safety have remained hidden. Chart review can detect adverse events in research settings, but it is too expensive for routine use. Information technology techniques can detect some adverse events in a timely and cost-effective way, in some cases early enough to prevent patient harm. OBJECTIVE: To review methodologies of detecting adverse events using information technology, reports of studies that used these techniques to detect adverse events, and study results for specific types of adverse events. DESIGN: Structured review. METHODOLOGY: English-language studies that reported using information technology to detect adverse events were identified using standard techniques. Only studies that contained original data were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adverse events, with specific focus on nosocomial infections, adverse drug events, and injurious falls. RESULTS: Tools such as event monitoring and natural language processing can inexpensively detect certain types of adverse events in clinical databases. These approaches already work well for some types of adverse events, including adverse drug events and nosocomial infections, and are in routine use in a few hospitals. In addition, it appears likely that these techniques will be adaptable in ways that allow detection of a broad array of adverse events, especially as more medical information becomes computerized. CONCLUSION: Computerized detection of adverse events will soon be practical on a widespread basis.

Overview

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 · 10.1197/jamia.m1074

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 467

Metadata

Authors
Bates, D. W., Evans, R. S., Murff, H., Stetson, P. D., Pizziferri, L., & Hripcsak, G.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2003-03
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
115-128
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W34638141
Cited by
467
References
1
FWCI
36.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Detecting Adverse Events Using Information Technology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1197/jamia.m1074
The paper
Bates, D. W., Evans, R. S., Murff, H., Stetson, P. D., Pizziferri, L., & Hripcsak, G. (2003). Detecting Adverse Events Using Information Technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.m1074

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.