Abstract
Background
Rule-base clinical decision support alerts are known to malfunction, but tools for discovering malfunctions are limited.
Objective
Investigate whether user override comments can be used to discover malfunctions.
Methods
We manually classified all rules in our database with at least 10 override comments into 3 categories based on a sample of override comments: “broken,” “not broken, but could be improved,” and “not broken.” We used 3 methods (frequency of comments, cranky word list heuristic, and a Naïve Bayes classifier trained on a sample of comments) to automatically rank rules based on features of their override comments. We evaluated each ranking using the manual classification as truth.
Results
Of the rules investigated, 62 were broken, 13 could be improved, and the remaining 45 were not broken. Frequency of comments performed worse than a random ranking, with precision at 20 of 8 and AUC = 0.487. The cranky comments heuristic performed better with precision at 20 of 16 and AUC = 0.723. The Naïve Bayes classifier had precision at 20 of 17 and AUC = 0.738.
Discussion
Override comments uncovered malfunctions in 26% of all rules active in our system. This is a lower bound on total malfunctions and much higher than expected. Even for low-resource organizations, reviewing comments identified by the cranky word list heuristic may be an effective and feasible way of finding broken alerts.
Conclusion
Override comments are a rich data source for finding alerts that are broken or could be improved. If possible, we recommend monitoring all override comments on a regular basis.
Cranky comments: detecting clinical decision support malfunctions through free-text override reasons
