Cited by 263Electronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Tiering Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts by Severity Increases Compliance Rates

Open access
Paterno, M. D., Maviglia, S. M., Gorman, P. N., Seger, D. L., Yoshida, E., Seger, A. C., Bates, D. W., Gandhi, T. K.·2009·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Few data exist measuring the effect of differentiating drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts in computerized provider order entry systems (CPOE) by level of severity ("tiering"). We sought to determine if rates of provider compliance with DDI alerts in the inpatient setting differed when a tiered presentation was implemented. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective analysis of alert log data on hospitalized patients at two academic medical centers during the period from 2/1/2004 through 2/1/2005. Both inpatient CPOE systems used the same DDI checking service, but one displayed alerts differentially by severity level (tiered presentation, including hard stops for the most severe alerts) while the other did not. Participants were adult inpatients who generated a DDI alert, and providers who wrote the orders. Alerts were presented during the order entry process, providing the clinician with the opportunity to change the patient's medication orders to avoid the interaction. MEASUREMENTS: Rate of compliance to alerts at a tiered site compared to a non-tiered site. RESULTS: We reviewed 71,350 alerts, of which 39,474 occurred at the non-tiered site and 31,876 at the tiered site. Compliance with DDI alerts was significantly higher at the site with tiered DDI alerts compared to the non-tiered site (29% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). At the tiered site, 100% of the most severe alerts were accepted, vs. only 34% at the non-tiered site; moderately severe alerts were also more likely to be accepted at the tiered site (29% vs. 10%). CONCLUSION: Tiered alerting by severity was associated with higher compliance rates of DDI alerts in the inpatient setting, and lack of tiering was associated with a high override rate of more severe alerts.

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.m2808

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?

  • In HCI literature, visual cues have been used to reduce overlooking specific part of the interface for high critical tasks.

    “In HCI literature, visual cues have been used to reduce overlooking specific part of the interface for high critical tasks [21, 62].”

    From Explainable recommendation: when design meets trust calibration (2021) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Methods and Discussion (page unavailable) describe presenting drug–drug interaction alerts differently by severity so clinicians would be more inclined to consider serious alerts; tiering was associated with higher compliance. The paper does not establish that visual cues reduced overlooking a specific part of an interface, as the citing sentence claims. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous research by Paterno et al showed that by tiering drug-drug interaction alerts in the EHR, acceptance rates of severe and moderate drug-drug interaction alerts increased.

    “Previous research by Paterno et al showed that by tiering drug–drug interaction alerts in the EHR, acceptance rates of severe and moderate drug–drug interaction alerts increased. 30”

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 12 · Cited by 263

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. [2]Weingart SN, Toth M, Sands DZ, Aronson, MD, Davis RB, Russell SP. Physicians' Decisions to Override Computerized Drug Alerts in Primary Care Arch Intern Med 2003;163:2625-2631. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. [3]Payne TH, Nichol WP, Hoey P, Savarino J. Characteristics and override rates of order checks in a practitioner order entry system Proc AMIA Symp 2002:602-606. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  3. [4]Glassman PA, Simon B, Belperio P, Lanto A. Improving Recognition of Drug Interactions: Benefits and Barriers to Using Automated Drug Alerts Med Care 2002;40:1161-1171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. [5]Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang SJ, et al. Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of evidence-based Medicine a Reality J Am Med Inf Assoc 2003;10:523-530. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. [6]Kuperman GJ, Marston E, Paterno M, et al. Creating an Enterprise-wide Allergy Repository At Partners HealthCare System Proc AMIA Symp 2003:376-380. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. [7]Kuperman GJ, Bates DW, Teich JM, Schneider JR, Cheiman D. A new knowledge structure for drug-drug interactions Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1994:836-840. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. [9]Van der Sijs H, Aarts J, Vulto A, Berg M. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry J Am Med Inf Assoc 2006;13:138-147. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. [10]van Roon E, Flikweert S, le Comte M, Langendijk P, Kwee-Zuiderwijk W, Smits P, Brouwers J. Clinical Relevance of Drug-Drug Interactions Drug Safety 2005;281131–1130. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. [11]Teich JM, Osheroff JA, Pifer EA, Sittig DF, Jenders RA, CDS Expert Review Panel Clinical Decision Support in Electronic Prescribing: Recommendations and an Action Plan J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:365-376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. [12]Spina JR, Glassman PA, Belperio P, Cader R, Asch S. Clinical Relevance of Automated Drug Alerts From the Perspective of Medical Providers Am J Med Qual 2005;20:7-14. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. [13]Yu DT, Peterson JF, Seger DL, Gerth WC, Bates DW. Frequency of potential azole drug-drug interactions and consequences of potential fluconazole drug interaction Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005;14:755-767. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Authors
Paterno, M. D., Maviglia, S. M., Gorman, P. N., Seger, D. L., Yoshida, E., Seger, A. C., Bates, D. W., & Gandhi, T. K.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2009-01-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
40-46
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2111489845
Cited by
263
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 23
FWCI
40.39
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)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
drug-drug interactions, computerized physician order entry, clinical decision support alerts, alert override, hard stops, drug safety
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Drug Interactions, Drug Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Medication Systems, Hospital, Retrospective Studies, User-Computer Interface, Reminder Systems, Point-of-Care Systems, Guideline Adherence, 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