BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) alerting tools can identify and reduce medication errors. However, they are typically rule-based and can identify only the errors previously programmed into their alerting logic. Machine learning holds promise for improving medication error detection and reducing costs associated with adverse events. This study evaluates the ability of a machine learning system (MedAware) to generate clinically valid alerts and estimates the cost savings associated with potentially prevented adverse events. METHODS: Alerts were generated retrospectively by the MedAware system on outpatient data from two academic medical centers between 2009 and 2013. MedAware alerts were compared to alerts in an existing CDS system. A random sample of 300 alerts was selected for medical record review. Frequency and severity of potential outcomes of alerted medication errors of medium and high clinical value were estimated, along with associated health care costs of these potentially prevented adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 10,668 alerts were generated. Overall, 68.2% of MedAware alerts would not have been generated by the existing CDS system. Ninety-two percent of a random sample of the chart-reviewed alerts were accurate based on structured data available in the record, and 79.7% were clinically valid. Estimated cost of adverse events potentially prevented in an outpatient setting was more than $60 per drug alert and $1.3 million when extrapolating study findings to the full patient population. CONCLUSION: A machine learning system identified clinically valid medication error alerts that might otherwise be missed with existing CDS systems. Estimates show potential for cost savings associated with potentially prevented adverse events.
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) alerting tools can identify and reduce medication errors. However, they are typically rule-based and can identify only the errors previously programmed into their alerting logic. Machine learning holds promise for improving medication error detection and reducing costs associated with adverse events. This study evaluates the ability of a machine learning system (MedAware) to generate clinically valid alerts and estimates the cost savings associated with potentially prevented adverse events. METHODS: Alerts were generated retrospectively by the MedAware system on outpatient data from two academic medical centers between 2009 and 2013. MedAware alerts were compared to alerts in an existing CDS system. A random sample of 300 alerts was selected for medical record review. Frequency and severity of potential outcomes of alerted medication errors of medium and high clinical value were estimated, along with associated health care costs of these potentially prevented adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 10,668 alerts were generated. Overall, 68.2% of MedAware alerts would not have been generated by the existing CDS system. Ninety-two percent of a random sample of the chart-reviewed alerts were accurate based on structured data available in the record, and 79.7% were clinically valid. Estimated cost of adverse events potentially prevented in an outpatient setting was more than $60 per drug alert and $1.3 million when extrapolating study findings to the full patient population. CONCLUSION: A machine learning system identified clinically valid medication error alerts that might otherwise be missed with existing CDS systems. Estimates show potential for cost savings associated with potentially prevented adverse events.
Authors: Gordon D Schiff; Harry Reyes Nieva; Paula Griswold; Nicholas Leydon; Judy Ling; Frank Federico; Carol Keohane; Bonnie R Ellis; Cathy Foskett; E John Orav; Catherine Yoon; Don Goldmann; Joel S Weissman; David W Bates; Madeleine Biondolillo; Sara J Singer Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Eta S Berner; Midge N Ray; Anantachai Panjamapirom; Richard S Maisiak; James H Willig; Thomas M English; Marc Krawitz; Christa R Nevin; Shannon Houser; Mark P Cohen; Gordon D Schiff Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-03-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michael A Steinman; Steven M Handler; Jerry H Gurwitz; Gordon D Schiff; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Brian J Douthit; Rachel L Walden; Kenrick Cato; Cynthia P Coviak; Christopher Cruz; Fabio D'Agostino; Thompson Forbes; Grace Gao; Theresa A Kapetanovic; Mikyoung A Lee; Lisiane Pruinelli; Mary A Schultz; Ann Wieben; Alvin D Jeffery Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Melissa Treviño; George Birdsong; Ann Carrigan; Peter Choyke; Trafton Drew; Miguel Eckstein; Anna Fernandez; Brandon D Gallas; Maryellen Giger; Stephen M Hewitt; Todd S Horowitz; Yuhong V Jiang; Bonnie Kudrick; Susana Martinez-Conde; Stephen Mitroff; Linda Nebeling; Joseph Saltz; Frank Samuelson; Steven E Seltzer; Behrouz Shabestari; Lalitha Shankar; Eliot Siegel; Mike Tilkin; Jennifer S Trueblood; Alison L Van Dyke; Aradhana M Venkatesan; David Whitney; Jeremy M Wolfe Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2022-01-05
Authors: Maryam Ali Alharaibi; Abdullah A Alhifany; Yousif A Asiri; Monira M Alwhaibi; Sheraz Ali; Parameaswari P Jaganathan; Tariq M Alhawassi Journal: Ann Saudi Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 1.526
Authors: Yu Chuan Jack Li; David Westfall Bates; Yen Po Harvey Chin; Wenyu Song; Chia En Lien; Chang Ho Yoon; Wei-Chen Wang; Jennifer Liu; Phung Anh Nguyen; Yi Ting Feng; Li Zhou Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2021-01-27