Cited by 110Electronic Health Records SystemsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes

Evaluating Clinical Decision Support Systems: Monitoring CPOE Order Check Override Rates in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Computerized Patient Record System

Open access
Lin, C.-P., Payne, T. H., Nichol, W. P., Hoey, P. J., Anderson, C. L., Gennari, J. H.·2008·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure critical order check override rates in VA Puget Sound Health Care System's computerized practitioner order entry (CPOE) system and to compare 2006 results to a similar 2001 study. DESIGN: Analysis of ordering and order check data gathered by a post-hoc logging program. Use of Pearson's chi-square contingency table test comparing results from this study and the earlier study. MEASUREMENTS: Factors measured were total number of orders, frequency of order check types, frequency of order check overrides by order check type and comparisons of these results with previous results. RESULTS: A total of 37,040 orders generated 908 (2.5%) critical order checks. Drug-drug critical alert override rate was 74/85 (87%) in 2006 compared to 95/108 (88%) in 2001 (X ( 2 )=0.04, df=1, p=0.85). The drug-allergy override rate was 341/420 (81%) compared to 72/105 (69%) in 2001 (X ( 2 )=7.97, df=1, p=0.005). In 2001, 0.25% (105/42,621) orders generated a drug-allergy order check compared to 1.13% (420/37,040) in 2006 (X ( 2 )=238.45, df=1, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Override rates of critical drug-drug and drug-allergy order checks remain high at VA Puget Sound Health Care System including significant increases in drug-allergy order checks. We recommend that monitoring override rates be regular practice in clinical computing systems and conclude that qualitative research should be carried out to better understand how physicians interact with decision support at the point of ordering.

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.m2453

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.

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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 110

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [13]Hsieh TC, Gandhi TK, Seger AC, et al. Identification of Adverse Drug Events in the Outpatient Setting Using a Computerized, Text-searching Monitor Medinfo 2004;2004(CD):1651. [Google Scholar]

Authors
Lin, C.-P., Payne, T. H., Nichol, W. P., Hoey, P. J., Anderson, C. L., & Gennari, J. H.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • VA Puget Sound Health Care System (US)
  • VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System (US)
Corresponding author
Lin, C.-P.
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2008-09-01
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
620-626
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W1534681120
Cited by
110
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
22.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. National Library of Medicine (T15LM007442)
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 › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, computerized physician order entry, drug-drug interaction alerts, drug allergy alerts, Veterans Affairs health care
MeSH terms
Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Quality Assurance, Health Care, United States, User-Computer Interface, Washington, Medical Errors, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, 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