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
. 2014 Oct;21(e2):e219-25.
doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-002161. Epub 2014 Feb 4.

Sensitivity and specificity of dosing alerts for dosing errors among hospitalized pediatric patients

Jeremy S Stultz  1 , Kyle Porter  2 , Milap C Nahata  3
Affiliations

Sensitivity and specificity of dosing alerts for dosing errors among hospitalized pediatric patients

Jeremy S Stultz et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of a dosing alert system for dosing errors and to compare the sensitivity of a proprietary system with and without institutional customization at a pediatric hospital.

Methods: A retrospective analysis of medication orders, orders causing dosing alerts, reported adverse drug events, and dosing errors during July, 2011 was conducted. Dosing errors with and without alerts were identified and the sensitivity of the system with and without customization was compared.

Results: There were 47,181 inpatient pediatric orders during the studied period; 257 dosing errors were identified (0.54%). The sensitivity of the system for identifying dosing errors was 54.1% (95% CI 47.8% to 60.3%) if customization had not occurred and increased to 60.3% (CI 54.0% to 66.3%) with customization (p=0.02). The sensitivity of the system for underdoses was 49.6% without customization and 60.3% with customization (p=0.01). Specificity of the customized system for dosing errors was 96.2% (CI 96.0% to 96.3%) with a positive predictive value of 8.0% (CI 6.8% to 9.3). All dosing errors had an alert over-ridden by the prescriber and 40.6% of dosing errors with alerts were administered to the patient. The lack of indication-specific dose ranges was the most common reason why an alert did not occur for a dosing error.

Discussion: Advances in dosing alert systems should aim to improve the sensitivity and positive predictive value of the system for dosing errors.

Conclusions: The dosing alert system had a low sensitivity and positive predictive value for dosing errors, but might have prevented dosing errors from reaching patients. Customization increased the sensitivity of the system for dosing errors.

Keywords: Administration and dosage; Clinical decision support system; Medication errors; Pediatrics; Prescriptions; medical order entry systems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Medication orders analyzed. ADEs, adverse drug events.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparison of dosing alert system sensitivity with and without customization. ^Overdose was defined as a single or daily dose overdose. ‘Underdose was defined as a single or daily dose underdose. *Comparison of non-customized dosing ranges with those with customization using McNemar's test or Fisher's exact test.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C, et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 2001;285:2114–20 - PubMed
    1. Temple ME, Robinson RF, Miller JC, et al. Frequency and preventability of adverse drug reactions in paediatric patients. Drug Saf 2004;27:819–29 - PubMed
    1. Bates DW, Cullen DJ, Laird N, et al. Incidence of adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events. Implications for prevention. ADE Prevention Study Group. JAMA 1995;274:29–34 - PubMed
    1. Ghaleb MA, Barber N, Franklin BD, et al. Systematic review of medication errors in pediatric patients. Ann Pharmacother 2006;40:1766–76 - PubMed
    1. Perlman JM. Fatal hyperphosphatemia after oral phosphate overdose in a premature infant. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1997;54:2488–90 - PubMed