Appropriateness of Alerts and Physicians’ Responses With a Medication-Related Clinical Decision Support System: Retrospective Observational Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alert fatigue is unavoidable when many irrelevant alerts are generated in response to a small number of useful alerts. It is necessary to increase the effectiveness of the clinical decision support system (CDSS) by understanding physicians' responses. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to understand the CDSS and physicians' behavior by evaluating the clinical appropriateness of alerts and the corresponding physicians' responses in a medication-related passive alert system. METHODS: Data on medication-related orders, alerts, and patients' electronic medical records were analyzed. The analyzed data were generated between August 2019 and June 2020 while the patient was in the emergency department. We evaluated the appropriateness of alerts and physicians' responses for a subset of 382 alert cases and classified them. RESULTS: Of the 382 alert cases, only 7.3% (n=28) of the alerts were clinically appropriate. Regarding the appropriateness of the physicians' responses about the alerts, 92.4% (n=353) were deemed appropriate. In the classification of alerts, only 3.4% (n=13) of alerts were successfully triggered, and 2.1% (n=8) were inappropriate in both alert clinical relevance and physician's response. In this study, the override rate was 92.9% (n=355). CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated the appropriateness of alerts and physicians' responses through a detailed medical record review of the medication-related passive alert system. An excessive number of unnecessary alerts are generated, because the algorithm operates as a rule base without reflecting the individual condition of the patient. It is important to maximize the value of the CDSS by comprehending physicians' responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".