Sarah Patricia Slight1, Patrick E Beeler2, Diane L Seger3, Mary G Amato4,5, Qoua L Her5, Michael Swerdloff5, Olivia Dalleur6, Karen C Nanji7, InSook Cho8,9, Nivethietha Maniam5, Tewodros Eguale5, Julie M Fiskio10, Patricia C Dykes11, David W Bates5. 1. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Durham University, Durham, UK. 2. Research Center for Medical Informatics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 3. Research Center for Medical Informatics, Partners Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Department of Pharmacy, MCPHS University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 6. Louvain Drug Research Institute, Universite catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium, Belgium. 7. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, USA. 8. Department of Nursing, Inha University, Incheon, Korea, Republic of. 9. Public Health Department, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Partners Healthcare, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 11. Division of General Internal Medicine & Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how often and why providers overrode drug allergy alerts in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study of drug allergy alerts generated over a 3-year period between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. SETTING: A 793-bed tertiary care teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School and 36 primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Drug allergy alerts were displayed for a total of 29 420 patients across both settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of drug allergy alerts displayed and overridden, proportion of appropriate overrides, proportion of overrides in each medication class, different reasons for overriding and types of reactions overridden. RESULTS: A total of 158 023 drug allergy alerts were displayed, 131 615 (83%) in the inpatient setting and 26 408 (17%) in the outpatient setting; 128 157 (81%) of which were overridden. A random sample of inpatient (n=200, 0.19%) and outpatient (n=50, 0.25%) alert overrides were screened for appropriateness, with >96% considered appropriate. Alerts for some drug classes, such as 'non-antibiotic sulfonamides', were overridden for >81% of prescriptions in both settings. The most common override reason was patient has taken previously without allergic reaction. In the inpatient setting alone, 70.9% of alerts that warned against the risk of anaphylaxis were overridden. CONCLUSIONS: The information contained in patients' drug allergy lists needs to be regularly updated. Most of the drug allergy alerts were overridden, with the majority of alert overrides in the subsample considered appropriate. Some of the rules for these alerts should be carefully reviewed and modified, or removed. Further research is needed to understand providers' overriding of alerts that warned against the risk of 'anaphylaxis', which are more concerning with respect to patient safety. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how often and why providers overrode drug allergy alerts in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. DESIGN: A cross-sectional observational study of drug allergy alerts generated over a 3-year period between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2011. SETTING: A 793-bed tertiary care teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School and 36 primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Drug allergy alerts were displayed for a total of 29 420 patients across both settings. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of drug allergy alerts displayed and overridden, proportion of appropriate overrides, proportion of overrides in each medication class, different reasons for overriding and types of reactions overridden. RESULTS: A total of 158 023 drug allergy alerts were displayed, 131 615 (83%) in the inpatient setting and 26 408 (17%) in the outpatient setting; 128 157 (81%) of which were overridden. A random sample of inpatient (n=200, 0.19%) and outpatient (n=50, 0.25%) alert overrides were screened for appropriateness, with >96% considered appropriate. Alerts for some drug classes, such as 'non-antibiotic sulfonamides', were overridden for >81% of prescriptions in both settings. The most common override reason was patient has taken previously without allergic reaction. In the inpatient setting alone, 70.9% of alerts that warned against the risk of anaphylaxis were overridden. CONCLUSIONS: The information contained in patients' drug allergy lists needs to be regularly updated. Most of the drug allergy alerts were overridden, with the majority of alert overrides in the subsample considered appropriate. Some of the rules for these alerts should be carefully reviewed and modified, or removed. Further research is needed to understand providers' overriding of alerts that warned against the risk of 'anaphylaxis', which are more concerning with respect to patient safety. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision support, computerized; Health services research; Medication safety
Authors: Brian L Strom; Rita Schinnar; Andrea J Apter; David J Margolis; Ebbing Lautenbach; Sean Hennessy; Warren B Bilker; Dan Pettitt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-10-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ching-Ping Lin; Thomas H Payne; W Paul Nichol; Patricia J Hoey; Curtis L Anderson; John H Gennari Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Karen C Nanji; Sarah P Slight; Diane L Seger; Insook Cho; Julie M Fiskio; Lisa M Redden; Lynn A Volk; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-28 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: Sarah P Slight; Diane L Seger; Karen C Nanji; Insook Cho; Nivethietha Maniam; Patricia C Dykes; David W Bates Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Foster R Goss; Kenneth H Lai; Maxim Topaz; Warren W Acker; Leigh Kowalski; Joseph M Plasek; Kimberly G Blumenthal; Diane L Seger; Sarah P Slight; Kin Wah Fung; Frank Y Chang; David W Bates; Li Zhou Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Liqin Wang; Suzanne V Blackley; Kimberly G Blumenthal; Sharmitha Yerneni; Foster R Goss; Ying-Chih Lo; Sonam N Shah; Carlos A Ortega; Zfania Tom Korach; Diane L Seger; Li Zhou Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Laura Légat; Sven Van Laere; Marc Nyssen; Stephane Steurbaut; Alain G Dupont; Pieter Cornu Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-09-07 Impact factor: 5.428