Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 573–579 | Cite as

Evaluation of Harm Associated with High Dose-Range Clinical Decision Support Overrides in the Intensive Care Unit

  • Adrian Wong
  • Christine Rehr
  • Diane L. Seger
  • Mary G. Amato
  • Patrick E. Beeler
  • Sarah P. Slight
  • Adam Wright
  • David W. BatesEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

Medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts have been shown to be effective at reducing adverse drug events (ADEs). However, these alerts are frequently overridden, with limited data linking these overrides to harm. Dose-range checking alerts are a type of CDS alert that could have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting.

Methods

We performed a single-center, prospective, observational study of adult ICUs from September 2016 to April 2017. Targeted overridden alerts were triggered when doses greater than or equal to 5% over the maximum dose were prescribed. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of the override, determined by two independent reviewers, using pre-specified criteria formulated by a multidisciplinary group. Overrides which resulted in medication administration were then evaluated for ADEs by chart review.

Results

The override rate of high dose-range alerts in the ICU was 93.0% (total n = 1525) during the study period. A total of 1418 overridden alerts from 755 unique patients were evaluated for appropriateness (appropriateness rate 88.8%). The most common medication associated with high dose-range alerts was insulin regular infusion (n = 262, 18.5%). The rates of ADEs for the appropriately and inappropriately overridden alerts per 100 overridden alerts were 1.3 and 5.0, respectively (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Overriding high dose-range CDS alerts was found to be common and often appropriate, suggesting that more intelligent dose checking is needed. Some alerts were clearly inappropriately presented to the provider. Inappropriate overrides were associated with an increased risk of ADEs, compared to appropriately overridden alerts.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network.

Conflict of interest

Dr. David Bates reports receiving equity from Intensix, which makes software to support clinical decision making in intensive care; being named as co-inventor on Patent Number 6029138 held by Brigham and Women’s Hospital on the use of decision support software for medical management, licensed to Medicalis, and holding a minority equity position in Medicalis, which develops web-based decision support for radiology test ordering; consulting for Early Sense, which makes patient safety monitoring systems; receiving equity and cash compensation from QPID, a company focused on intelligence systems for electronic health records; receiving cash compensation from CDI (Negev), which is a not-for profit incubator for health IT start-ups; and receiving equity from Enelgy, which makes software to support evidence-based clinical decisions, from Ethosmart, which makes software to help patients with chronic diseases, and from MDClone, which takes clinical data and produces de-identified versions of it. Dr. Patrick Beeler was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr. Adrian Wong, Ms. Christine Rehr, Ms. Diane Seger, Dr. Mary Amato, Dr. Sarah Slight and Dr. Adam Wright have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Partners HealthCare Institutional Review Board.

References

  1. 1.
    Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Locallo AR, Barnes BA, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Classen DC, Pestotnik Evans RS, Lloyd JF, Burke JP. Adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. Excess length of stay, extra costs, and attributable mortality. JAMA. 1997;277:301–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bates DW, Spell N, Cullen DJ, Burdick E, Laird N, Petersen LA, et al. The costs of adverse drug events in hospitalized patients. JAMA. 1997;277:307–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, Seger D, Kuperman GJ, Ma’Luf N, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:313–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin CP, Payne TH, Nichol P, Hoey PJ, Anderson CL, Gennari JH. Evaluating clinical decision support systems: monitoring CPOE order check override rates in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Computerized Patient Record System. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:620–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nanji KC, Slight SP, Seger DL, Cho I, Fiskio JM, Redden LM, et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:487–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong A, Amato MG, Seger DL, Slight SP, Beeler PE, Dykes PC, et al. Evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support overrides in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care. 2017;39:156–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong A, Amato MG, Seger DL, Rehr C, Wright A, Slight SP, et al. Prospective evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support overrides in the intensive care unit. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27:718–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cullen DJ, Sweitzer BJ, Bates DW, Burdick E, Edmondson A, Leape LL. Preventable adverse drug events in hospitalized patients: a comparative study of intensive care and general care units. Crit Care Med. 1997;25:1289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rothschild JM, Landrigan CP, Cronin JW, Kaushal R, Lockley SW, Burdick E, et al. The Critical Care Safety Study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1694–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Coleman JJ, Nwulu U, Ferner RE. Decision support for sensible dosing in electronic prescribing systems. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;37:415–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seidling HM, Barmawi AA, Kaltschmidt J, Bertsche T, Pruszcdlo MG, Haefeli WE. Detection and prevention of prescriptions with excessive doses in electronic prescribing systems. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;63:1185–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seidling HM, Schmitt SP, Bruckner T, Kaltschmidt J, Pruszydlo MG, Senger C, et al. Patient-specific electronic clinical decision support reduces prescription of excessive doses. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winterstein AG, Johns TE, Rosenberg EI, Hatton RC, Gonzalez-Rothi R, Kanjanarat P. Nature and causes of clinically significant medication errors in a tertiary care hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2004;61:1908–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    ISMP list of high-alert medications in acute care settings. Institute for Safe Medication Practices website. https://www.ismp.org/tools/institutionalhighAlert.asp. Updated 2014. Accessed 20 July 2018.
  17. 17.
    Morimoto T, Gandhi TK, Seger AC, Hsieh TC, Bates DW. Adverse drug events and medication errors: detection and classification methods. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13:306–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lesar TS, Briceland LL, Delcoure K, Parmalee JC, Masta-Gornic V, Pohl H. Medication prescribing errors in a teaching hospital. JAMA. 1990;263:2329–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaushal R, Barker KN, Bates DW. How can information technology improve patient safety and reduce medication errors in children’s health care? Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:1002–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fortescue EB, Kaushal R, Landrigan CP, McKenna KJ, Clapp MD, Federico F, et al. Prioritizing strategies for preventing medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. Pediatrics. 2003;111:722–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Potts AL, Barr FE, Gregory DF, Wright L, Patel NR. Computerized physician order entry and medication errors in a pediatric critical care unit. Pediatrics. 2004;113:59–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson KB, Lee CKK, Spooner A, Davison CL, Helmke JS, Weinberg ST. Automated dose-rounding recommendations for pediatric medications. Pediatrics. 2011;128:e4220–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nanji KC, Seger DL, Slight SP, Amato MG, Beeler PE, Her QL, et al. Medication-related clinical decision support alert overrides in inpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25:476–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coleman JJ, Hodson J, Ferner RE. Deriving dose limits for warnings in electronic prescribing systems: statistical analysis of prescription data at University Hospital Birmingham. UK. Drug Saf. 2013;35:291–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rehr CA, Wong A, Seger DL, Bates DW. Determining inappropriate medication alerts from “inaccurate warning” overrides in the intensive care unit. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9:268–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Eschmann E, Beeler PE, Schneemann M, Blaser J. Developing strategies for predicting hyperkalemia in potassium-increasing drug-drug interactions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24:60–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy PracticeMCPHS UniversityBostonUSA
  2. 2.The Center for Patient Safety Research and PracticeBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary CareBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  4. 4.Clinical and Quality AnalysisPartners HealthCareSomervilleUSA
  5. 5.Research Center for Medical InformaticsUniversity HospitalZurichSwitzerland
  6. 6.School of PharmacyNewcastle UniversityNewcastle upon TyneUK
  7. 7.Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNewcastle upon TyneUK
  8. 8.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations