Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32337561›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020

High-priority drug-drug interaction clinical decision support overrides in a newly implemented commercial computerized provider order-entry system: Override appropriateness and adverse drug events.

Heba Edrees, Mary G Amato, Adrian Wong, Diane L Seger, David W Bates

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of an Interruptive Alert on the Number of Women Receiving CDC-Recommended Therapy for Trichomoniasis.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Heba EdreesDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Mary G AmatoDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Adrian WongDepartment of Pharmacy Practice, Massachusetts College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Diane L SegerCenter for Patient Safety Research and Practice, Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
David W BatesCenter for Patient Safety Research and Practice, Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe study sought to determine frequency and appropriateness of overrides of high-priority drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts and whether adverse drug events (ADEs) were associated with overrides in a newly implemented electronic health record. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of overridden high-priority DDI alerts occurring from April 1, 2016, to March 31, 2017, from inpatient and outpatient settings at an academic health center. We studied highest-severity DDIs that were previously designated as "hard stops" and additional high-priority DDIs identified from clinical experience and literature review. All highest-severity alert overrides (n = 193) plus a stratified random sample of additional overrides (n = 371) were evaluated for override appropriateness, using predetermined criteria. Charts were reviewed to identify ADEs for overrides that resulted in medication administration. A chi-square test was used to compare ADE rate by override appropriateness.

resultsOf 16 011 alerts presented to providers, 15 318 (95.7%) were overridden, including 193 (87.3%) of the highest-severity DDIs and 15 125 (95.8%) of additional DDIs. Override appropriateness was 45.4% overall, 0.5% for highest-severity DDIs and 68.7% for additional DDIs. For alerts that resulted in medication administration (n = 423, 75.0%), 29 ADEs were identified (6.9%, 5.1 per 100 overrides). The rate of ADEs was higher with inappropriate vs appropriate overrides (9.4% vs 4.3%; P = .038).

conclusionsThe override rate was nearly 90% for even the highest-severity DDI alerts, indicating that stronger suggestions should be made for these alerts, while other alerts should be evaluated for potential suppression.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalDrug InteractionsDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsElectronic Health RecordsMedical Order Entry SystemsAcademic Medical CentersChi-Square DistributionDrug Therapy, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMaleMedication ErrorsRetrospective Studieselectronic prescribinghealth information technologymedication safetypatient safetyquality of care

Identifiers

PMID32337561
PMCPMC7647273

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.