Cited by 86Electronic Health Records SystemsPharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Are We Heeding the Warning Signs? Examining Providers’ Overrides of Computerized Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts in Primary Care

Open access
Slight, Sarah P., Seger, Diane L., Nanji, Karen C., Cho, Insook, Maniam, Nivethietha, Dykes, Patricia C., Bates, David W.·2013·PLoS ONE

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health IT can play a major role in improving patient safety. Computerized physician order entry with decision support can alert providers to potential prescribing errors. However, too many alerts can result in providers ignoring and overriding clinically important ones. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness of providers' drug-drug interaction (DDI) alert overrides, the reasons why they chose to override these alerts, and what actions they took as a consequence of the alert. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, observational study of DDI alerts generated over a three-year period between January 1st, 2009, and December 31st, 2011. SETTING: Primary care practices affiliated with two Harvard teaching hospitals. The DDI alerts were screened to minimize the number of clinically unimportant warnings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 24,849 DDI alerts were generated in the study period, with 40% accepted. The top 62 providers with the highest override rate were identified and eight overrides randomly selected for each (a total of 496 alert overrides for 438 patients, 3.3% of the sample). RESULTS: Overall, 68.2% (338/496) of the DDI alert overrides were considered appropriate. Among inappropriate overrides, the therapeutic combinations put patients at increased risk of several specific conditions including: serotonin syndrome (21.5%, n=34), cardiotoxicity (16.5%, n=26), or sharp falls in blood pressure or significant hypotension (28.5%, n=45). A small number of drugs and DDIs accounted for a disproportionate share of alert overrides. Of the 121 appropriate alert overrides where the provider indicated they would "monitor as recommended", a detailed chart review revealed that only 35.5% (n=43) actually did. Providers sometimes reported that patients had already taken interacting medications together (15.7%, n=78), despite no evidence to confirm this. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We found that providers continue to override important and useful alerts that are likely to cause serious patient injuries, even when relatively few false positive alerts are displayed.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0085071

Cites

18 of 18 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?

  • The lack of correlation between alert quantity and override rate supports prior evidence that reducing the number of alerts will not appreciably increase physician acceptance or reduce overrides.

    “The lack of correlation between alert quantity and override rate also supports prior evidence that reducing the number of alerts will not appreciably increase physician acceptance or reduce overrides [23].”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Slight, S. P., Seger, D. L., Nanji, K. C., Cho, I., Maniam, N., Dykes, P. C., & Bates, D. W.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Slight, Sarah P.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2013-12-26
Volume
8
Issue
12
Pages
e85071
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969908081
Cited by
86
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6
FWCI
14.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
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 interaction alerts, alert override, clinical decision support, computerized physician order entry, prescribing errors, patient safety, primary care, serotonin syndrome, cardiotoxicity, hypotension, false positive alerts
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Drug Interactions, Female, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Male, 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