Cited by 1,117Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Overriding of Drug Safety Alerts in Computerized Physician Order Entry

Open access
van der Sijs, H., Aarts, J., Vulto, A., Berg, M.·2006·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Many computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems have integrated drug safety alerts. The authors reviewed the literature on physician response to drug safety alerts and interpreted the results using Reason's framework of accident causation. In total, 17 papers met the inclusion criteria. Drug safety alerts are overridden by clinicians in 49% to 96% of cases. Alert overriding may often be justified and adverse drug events due to overridden alerts are not always preventable. A distinction between appropriate and useful alerts should be made. The alerting system may contain error-producing conditions like low specificity, low sensitivity, unclear information content, unnecessary workflow disruptions, and unsafe and inefficient handling. These may result in active failures of the physician, like ignoring alerts, misinterpretation, and incorrect handling. Efforts to improve patient safety by increasing correct handling of drug safety alerts should focus on the error-producing conditions in software and organization. Studies on cognitive processes playing a role in overriding drug safety alerts are lacking.

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.m1809

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • CDSSs are often basic and associated with a high burden of false positive alerts and alert fatigue.

    “Despite these benefits, CDSSs are often basic and associated with a high burden of false positive alerts and alert fatigue.”

    From Overall performance of a drug–drug interaction clinical decision support system: quantitative evaluation and end-user survey (2022) · cites this paper as [13]

    The Abstract warns that a high burden of alerts can cause alert fatigue, and the Results describe irrelevant and false-positive alerts as reasons physicians ignore or override them. The Results also identify missing alerting features, but do not establish the broader claim that CDSSs are often basic. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [7]

    The Results describe many alerts as irrelevant or false positive and recommend preventing some repeat alerts, including interaction alerts previously found not to cause problems for a particular patient. But the paper does not establish that repeated alerts generally become less informative or are often false alarms; it also cautions that an alert a clinician already knows can still flag a potentially unsafe situation. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Duplicate 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 [7]

    The Results (page not available) say that physicians find many alerts irrelevant and recommend preventing future alerts after an overriding decision. The paper does not specifically identify duplicate or repeated alerts as potentially uninformative; its references to “duplicate orders” concern alerts about duplicate medication orders, not duplicate alerts. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The inherent design of our site's EHR makes interruptive alerts one of the easiest and least expensive forms of CDS to implement, even though they are known to be disruptive and often ineffective.

    “The inherent design of our site’s EHR makes interruptive alerts one of the easiest and least expensive forms of CDS to implement, even though they are known to be disruptive and often ineffective. 5 15 16”

    From Qualitative Study of Inpatient Hospital Medicine Interruptive Alerts and Clinical Decision Support (2026) · cites this paper as [16]

    The Results (page not available) describe unnecessary workflow interruptions and alert fatigue that can cause important alerts to be ignored, supporting the claim that alerts can be disruptive and ineffective. The paper does not assess the citing site's EHR or say that interruptive alerts are among the easiest or least expensive CDS tools to implement. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Alert 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 [13]

    The Results report that safety alerts were overridden in 49%–96% of cases, supporting the cited range. But the same passage excludes serious overdose alerts, which were overridden about one fourth of the time; the Discussion and Conclusion gives 27%. The citing sentence omits that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 2

  1. [15]Peterson JF, Kuperman GJ, Shek C, Bates DW. Physician responses to life-threatening drug-drug interaction alerts. J Gen Intern Med. 2001;16:212. [Google Scholar]
  2. [26]Krall MA, Sittig DF. Clinicians' assessment of outpatient electronic medical record alert and reminder usability and usefulness requirements. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:400–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van der Sijs, H., Aarts, J., Vulto, A., & Berg, M.
Affiliations
Erasmus MC (NL)
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2006-03-01
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
138-147
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2110922423
Cited by
1,117
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 58 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 61 · 2013: 69 · 2012: 70
FWCI
40.84
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)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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
drug safety warnings, computerized physician order entry, adverse drug reactions, active failures, workflow disruption, patient safety, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Medication Errors, Reminder Systems, Safety Management, Medical Order Entry Systems, 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