Characteristics and Consequences of Drug Allergy Alert Overrides in a Computerized Physician Order Entry System
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine characteristics of drug allergy alert overrides, assess how often they lead to preventable adverse drug events (ADEs), and suggest methods for improving the allergy-alerting system. DESIGN: Chart review was performed on a stratified random subset of all allergy alerts occurring during a 3-month period (August through October 2002) at a large academic hospital. MEASUREMENTS: Factors that were measured were drug/allergy combinations that triggered alerts, frequency of specific override reasons, characteristics of ADEs, and completeness of allergy documentation. RESULTS: A total of 6,182 (80%) of 7,761 alerts were overridden in 1,150 patients. In this sample, only 10% of alerts were triggered by an exact match between the drug ordered and allergy listed. Physicians' most common reasons for overriding alerts were "Aware/Will monitor" (55%), "Patient does not have this allergy/tolerates" (33%), and "Patient taking already" (10%). In a stratified random subset of 320 patients (28% of 1,150) on chart review, 19 (6%) experienced ADEs attributed to the overridden drug; of these, 9 (47%) were serious. None of the ADEs was considered preventable, because the overrides were deemed clinically justifiable. The degree of completeness of patients' allergy lists was highly variable and generally low in both paper charts and the CPOE system. CONCLUSION: Overrides of drug-allergy alerts were common and about 1 in 20 resulted in ADEs, but all of the overrides resulting in ADEs appeared clinically justifiable. The high rate of alert overrides was attributable to frequent nonexact match alerts and infrequent updating of allergy lists. Based on these findings, we have made specific recommendations for increasing the specificity of alerting and thereby improving the clinical utility of the drug allergy alerting system.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
A substantial body of work suggests that repeated CDSS alerts are less likely to be informative.
“This was because a substantial body of work [7, 8, 32, 33] suggests that repeated CDSS alerts are less likely to be informative (that is, they are often equivalent to false alarms).”
From Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
The Abstract (page not specified) describes redundant drug-allergy alerts from repeated prescription renewals and alerts with low predictive value. The Discussion (page not specified) says frequent false alerts can obscure important warnings. The paper does not establish that repeated CDSS alerts generally are less informative or that repetition itself makes an alert a false alarm. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlert nonadherence, or clinician overrides, occurs for 49%-96% of alerts.
“Alert nonadherence, or clinician overrides, is one key barrier that occurs for 49%–96% of alerts.13–23”
From Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
The Results report that 6,182 of 7,761 drug-allergy alerts (80%) were overridden, which falls within the cited range. The paper does not establish the 49%–96% range for alerts generally; its own measurement concerns drug-allergy alerts in one hospital's CPOE system. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredDuplicate alerts have previously been identified as potentially uninformative.
“Duplicate alerts have previously been identified as potentially uninformative [7, 8, 32].”
From Effects of workload, work complexity, and repeated alerts on alert fatigue in a clinical decision support system (2017) · cites this paper as [8]
The overall risk of ADEs is low, but very high override rates could increase the absolute number of inappropriate overrides, raising the ADE risk.
“While the overall risk of ADEs is low, our very high override rates could increase the absolute number of inappropriate overrides, raising the ADE risk [5,28].”
From Drug interaction alert override rates in the Meaningful Use era: No evidence of progress (2014) · cites this paper as [28]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 232
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [8]8. Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, Kuperman GJ, Spurr C, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry in prescrib- ing practices. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2741-7.
- [14]14. Bates DW, Leape LL. Adverse drug reactions. In: Carruthers SG, Hoffman BB, Melmon KL, Neirenberg D (eds). Melmon and Morrelli's Clinical Pharmacology (ed 4). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill/Appleton & Lange, 2000, pp 1223-56.
- [26]26. Ledford DK. Allergy, anaphylaxis, and general anesthesia. Im- munol and Allergy Clin North Am. 2001;21:795-812.
- Authors
- Hsieh, T. C., Kuperman, G. J., Jaggi, T., Hojnowski-Diaz, P., Fiskio, J., Williams, D. H., Bates, D. W., & Gandhi, T. K.
- Affiliations
- Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gandhi, Tejal K.
- Venue
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 482-491
- ISSN
- 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-974X
- PMC
- PMC524628
- OpenAlex
- W1524010859
- Cited by
- 232
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 37.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM007203)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Toxicology › Pharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
- Keywords
- drug allergy alerts, alert override, computerized physician order entry, adverse drug reactions, clinical decision support, drug safety
- MeSH terms
- Drug Hypersensitivity, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Medication Errors, Medication Systems, Hospital, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Reminder Systems, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
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