Ching-Ping Lin1, Thomas H Payne, W Paul Nichol, Patricia J Hoey, Curtis L Anderson, John H Gennari. 1. *Correspondence: Ching-Ping Lin, Biomedical and Health Informatics, Department of Medical Education and Biomedical Informatics, University of Washington, Box 357240, 1959 NE Pacific Street, HSB I-264, Seattle, WA 98195-7240 (Email: ping@u.washington.edu).
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.
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.
Authors: Richard M Reichley; Terry L Seaton; Ervina Resetar; Scott T Micek; Karen L Scott; Victoria J Fraser; W Claiborne Dunagan; Thomas C Bailey Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yu Ko; Jacob Abarca; Daniel C Malone; Donna C Dare; Doug Geraets; Antoun Houranieh; William N Jones; W Paul Nichol; Gregory P Schepers; Michelle Wilhardt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-10-26 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Tyken C Hsieh; Gilad J Kuperman; Tonushree Jaggi; Patricia Hojnowski-Diaz; Julie Fiskio; Deborah H Williams; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2004-08-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jamie J Coleman; Karla Hemming; Peter G Nightingale; Ian R Clark; Mary Dixon-Woods; Robin E Ferner; Richard J Lilford Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Kai Zheng; Kathleen Fear; Bruce W Chaffee; Christopher R Zimmerman; Edward M Karls; Justin D Gatwood; James G Stevenson; Mark D Pearlman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Rosemary J Call; Jonathan D Burlison; Jennifer J Robertson; Jeffrey R Scott; Donald K Baker; Michael G Rossi; Scott C Howard; James M Hoffman Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2014-04-25 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Thomas H Payne; Sarah Corley; Theresa A Cullen; Tejal K Gandhi; Linda Harrington; Gilad J Kuperman; John E Mattison; David P McCallie; Clement J McDonald; Paul C Tang; William M Tierney; Charlotte Weaver; Charlene R Weir; Michael H Zaroukian Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-05-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adrian Wong; Christine Rehr; Diane L Seger; Mary G Amato; Patrick E Beeler; Sarah P Slight; Adam Wright; David W Bates Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 5.606