Automation bias in electronic prescribing

David Lyell*, Farah Magrabi, Magdalena Z. Raban, L. G. Pont, Melissa T. Baysari, Richard O. Day, Enrico Coiera

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) in e-prescribing can improve safety by alerting potential errors, but introduces new sources of risk. Automation bias (AB) occurs when users over-rely on CDS, reducing vigilance in information seeking and processing. Evidence of AB has been found in other clinical tasks, but has not yet been tested with e-prescribing. This study tests for the presence of AB in e-prescribing and the impact of task complexity and interruptions on AB.

Methods: One hundred and twenty students in the final two years of a medical degree prescribed medicines for nine clinical scenarios using a simulated e-prescribing system. Quality of CDS (correct, incorrect and no CDS) and task complexity (low, low + interruption and high) were varied between conditions. Omission errors (failure to detect prescribing errors) and commission errors (acceptance of false positive alerts) were measured.

Results: Compared to scenarios with no CDS, correct CDS reduced omission errors by 38.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 46.6% (p < .0001, n = 70), and 39.2% (p < .0001, n = 120) for low, low + interrupt and high complexity scenarios respectively. Incorrect CDS increased omission errors by 33.3% (p < .0001, n = 120), 24.5% (p < .009, n = 82), and 26.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Participants made commission errors, 65.8% (p < .0001, n = 120), 53.5% (p < .0001, n = 82), and 51.7% (p < .0001, n = 120). Task complexity and interruptions had no impact on AB.

Conclusions: This study found evidence of AB omission and commission errors in e-prescribing. Verification of CDS alerts is key to avoiding AB errors. However, interventions focused on this have had limited success to date. Clinicians should remain vigilant to the risks of CDS failures and verify CDS.

Original languageEnglish
Article number28
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Mar 2017

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2017. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Keywords

  • Automation bias
  • Clinical
  • Cognitive biases
  • Complexity
  • Decision support systems
  • Electronic prescribing
  • Human-automation interaction
  • Human-computer interaction
  • Medication errors

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Automation bias in electronic prescribing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this