Design and Evaluation of an Electronic Override Mechanism for Medication Alerts to Facilitate Communication Between Prescribers and Pharmacists.

Russ AL, Chen S, Melton BL, Saleem JJ, Weiner M, Spina JR, Daggy JK, Zillich AJ. Design and Evaluation of an Electronic Override Mechanism for Medication Alerts to Facilitate Communication Between Prescribers and Pharmacists. The Annals of pharmacotherapy. 2015 Jul 1; 49(7):761-9.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• PPO 09-298 – Redesigning Medication Alerts to Support Prescriber Workflow
• CDA 11-214 – Improving Medication Safety through Human Factors and Informatics Research

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Computerized medication alerts can often be bypassed by entering an override rationale, but prescribers' override reasons are frequently ambiguous to pharmacists who review orders. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a new override mechanism for adverse reaction and drug-drug interaction alerts. We hypothesized that the new mechanism would improve usability for prescribers and increase the clinical appropriateness of override reasons. METHODS: A counterbalanced, crossover study was conducted with 20 prescribers in a simulated prescribing environment. We modified the override mechanism timing, navigation, and text entry. Instead of free-text entry, the new mechanism presented prescribers with a predefined set of override reasons. We assessed usability (learnability, perceived efficiency, and usability errors) and used a priori criteria to evaluate the clinical appropriateness of override reasons entered. RESULTS: Prescribers rated the new mechanism as more efficient (Wilcoxon signed-rank test, P = 0.032). When first using the new design, 5 prescribers had difficulty finding the new mechanism, and 3 interpreted the navigation to mean that the alert could not be overridden. The number of appropriate override reasons significantly increased with the new mechanism compared with the original mechanism (median change of 3.0; interquartile range = 3.0; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: When prescribers were given a menu-based choice for override reasons, clinical appropriateness of these reasons significantly improved. Further enhancements are necessary, but this study is an important first step toward a more standardized menu of override choices. Findings may be used to improve communication through e-prescribing systems between prescribers and pharmacists.