Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Nov 1;25(11):1556-1566.
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy112.

Efficacy and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts in electronic health record systems: a systematic review

Emily M Powers  1   2 , Richard N Shiffman  1   2 , Edward R Melnick  1   3 , Andrew Hickner  4 , Mona Sharifi  1   2
Affiliations

Efficacy and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts in electronic health record systems: a systematic review

Emily M Powers et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. .

Abstract

Objective: Clinical decision support (CDS) hard-stop alerts-those in which the user is either prevented from taking an action altogether or allowed to proceed only with the external override of a third party-are increasingly common but can be problematic. To understand their appropriate application, we asked 3 key questions: (1) To what extent are hard-stop alerts effective in improving patient health and healthcare delivery outcomes? (2) What are the adverse events and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts? (3) How do hard-stop alerts compare to soft-stop alerts?

Methods and materials: Studies evaluating computerized hard-stop alerts in healthcare settings were identified from biomedical and computer science databases, gray literature sites, reference lists, and reviews. Articles were extracted for process outcomes, health outcomes, unintended consequences, user experience, and technical details.

Results: Of 32 studies, 15 evaluated health outcomes, 16 process outcomes only, 10 user experience, and 4 compared hard and soft stops. Seventy-nine percent showed improvement in health outcomes and 88% in process outcomes. Studies reporting good user experience cited heavy user involvement and iterative design. Eleven studies reported on unintended consequences including avoidance of hard-stopped workflow, increased alert frequency, and delay to care. Hard stops were superior to soft stops in 3 of 4 studies.

Conclusions: Hard stops can be effective and powerful tools in the CDS armamentarium, but they must be implemented judiciously with continuous user feedback informing rapid, iterative design. Investigators must report on associated health outcomes and unintended consequences when implementing IT solutions to clinical problems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
(a) Number of studies reporting outcomes by category. (b) Number of studies reporting improvement in outcomes associated with the hard-stop intervention.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. QuickStats: Percentage of Office-Based Physicians with a Basic Electronic Health Record (EHR) System,* by State—National Electronic Health Records Survey,† United States, 2014§. 2015; 6434: 963–963. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6434a10.htm.
    1. Rosenberg SN, Sullivan M, Juster IA.. Overrides of medication alerts in ambulatory care. Arch Intern Med 2009; 16914: 1337; author reply 1338.. - PubMed
    1. Nanji KC, Slight SP, Seger DL, et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 213: 487–91. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zenziper Straichman Y, Kurnik D, Matok I, et al. Prescriber response to computerized drug alerts for electronic prescriptions among hospitalized patients. Int J Med Inform 2017; 107: 70–5. - PubMed
    1. Wachter R. The Digital Doctor: Hope, Hype, and Harm at the Dawn of Medicine’s Computer Age. New York: McGraw Hill Professional; 2015.

Publication types

MeSH terms