Cited by 353Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving Acceptance of Computerized Prescribing Alerts in Ambulatory Care

Open access

Abstract

Computerized drug prescribing alerts can improve patient safety, but are often overridden because of poor specificity and alert overload. Our objective was to improve clinician acceptance of drug alerts by designing a selective set of drug alerts for the ambulatory care setting and minimizing workflow disruptions by designating only critical to high-severity alerts to be interruptive to clinician workflow. The alerts were presented to clinicians using computerized prescribing within an electronic medical record in 31 Boston-area practices. There were 18,115 drug alerts generated during our six-month study period. Of these, 12,933 (71%) were noninterruptive and 5,182 (29%) interruptive. Of the 5,182 interruptive alerts, 67% were accepted. Reasons for overrides varied for each drug alert category and provided potentially useful information for future alert improvement. These data suggest that it is possible to design computerized prescribing decision support with high rates of alert recommendation acceptance by clinicians.

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.m1868

Cites

22 of 22 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

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 22 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Kilbridge, 2001, Overview of the Leapfrog Group evaluation tool for computerized physician order entry

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 353

Metadata

Authors
Shah, N. R., Seger, A. C., Seger, D. L., Fiskio, J. M., Kuperman, G. J., Blumenfeld, B., Recklet, E. G., 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
Published
2006-01
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
5-11
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2131675703
Cited by
353
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 40
FWCI
22.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2t32hs000020-18, R01-HS1169)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
drug alerts, alert override, clinician acceptance, interruptive alerts, electronic health records, outpatient care, patient safety, workflow disruption
MeSH terms
Contraindications, Adult, Ambulatory Care Information Systems, Attitude of Health Personnel, Attitude to Computers, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Female, Humans, Medication Errors, Pregnancy, Drug Prescriptions, Primary Health Care, User-Computer Interface, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Reminder Systems, 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