Cargando…

Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care, but its impact is often diminished because of issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Noninterruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Blecker, Saul, Pandya, Rishi, Stork, Susan, Mann, Devin, Kuperman, Gilad, Shelley, Donna, Austrian, Jonathan S
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30994460
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12469
_version_ 1783415071794266112
author Blecker, Saul
Pandya, Rishi
Stork, Susan
Mann, Devin
Kuperman, Gilad
Shelley, Donna
Austrian, Jonathan S
author_facet Blecker, Saul
Pandya, Rishi
Stork, Susan
Mann, Devin
Kuperman, Gilad
Shelley, Donna
Austrian, Jonathan S
author_sort Blecker, Saul
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care, but its impact is often diminished because of issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Noninterruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue, but there has been little assessment of its usability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to study the usability of interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. METHODS: We conducted a usability study of a CDS tool that recommended prescribing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for inpatients with heart failure. We developed 2 versions of the CDS: an interruptive alert triggered at order entry and a noninterruptive alert listed in the sidebar of the electronic health record screen. Inpatient providers were recruited and randomly assigned to use the interruptive alert followed by the noninterruptive alert or vice versa in a laboratory setting. We asked providers to “think aloud” while using the CDS and then conducted a brief semistructured interview about usability. We used a constant comparative analysis informed by the CDS Five Rights framework to analyze usability testing. RESULTS: A total of 12 providers participated in usability testing. Providers noted that the interruptive alert was readily noticed but generally impeded workflow. The noninterruptive alert was felt to be less annoying but had lower visibility, which might reduce engagement. Provider role seemed to influence preferences; for instance, some providers who had more global responsibility for patients seemed to prefer the noninterruptive alert, whereas more task-oriented providers generally preferred the interruptive alert. CONCLUSIONS: Providers expressed trade-offs between impeding workflow and improving visibility with interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. In addition, 2 potential approaches to effective CDS may include targeting alerts by provider role or supplementing a noninterruptive alert with an occasional, well-timed interruptive alert.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6492060
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64920602019-05-17 Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study Blecker, Saul Pandya, Rishi Stork, Susan Mann, Devin Kuperman, Gilad Shelley, Donna Austrian, Jonathan S JMIR Hum Factors Original Paper BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care, but its impact is often diminished because of issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Noninterruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue, but there has been little assessment of its usability. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to study the usability of interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. METHODS: We conducted a usability study of a CDS tool that recommended prescribing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for inpatients with heart failure. We developed 2 versions of the CDS: an interruptive alert triggered at order entry and a noninterruptive alert listed in the sidebar of the electronic health record screen. Inpatient providers were recruited and randomly assigned to use the interruptive alert followed by the noninterruptive alert or vice versa in a laboratory setting. We asked providers to “think aloud” while using the CDS and then conducted a brief semistructured interview about usability. We used a constant comparative analysis informed by the CDS Five Rights framework to analyze usability testing. RESULTS: A total of 12 providers participated in usability testing. Providers noted that the interruptive alert was readily noticed but generally impeded workflow. The noninterruptive alert was felt to be less annoying but had lower visibility, which might reduce engagement. Provider role seemed to influence preferences; for instance, some providers who had more global responsibility for patients seemed to prefer the noninterruptive alert, whereas more task-oriented providers generally preferred the interruptive alert. CONCLUSIONS: Providers expressed trade-offs between impeding workflow and improving visibility with interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. In addition, 2 potential approaches to effective CDS may include targeting alerts by provider role or supplementing a noninterruptive alert with an occasional, well-timed interruptive alert. JMIR Publications 2019-04-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6492060/ /pubmed/30994460 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12469 Text en ©Saul Blecker, Rishi Pandya, Susan Stork, Devin Mann, Gilad Kuperman, Donna Shelley, Jonathan S Austrian. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 17.04.2019. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Blecker, Saul
Pandya, Rishi
Stork, Susan
Mann, Devin
Kuperman, Gilad
Shelley, Donna
Austrian, Jonathan S
Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study
title Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study
title_full Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study
title_fullStr Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study
title_full_unstemmed Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study
title_short Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study
title_sort interruptive versus noninterruptive clinical decision support: usability study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6492060/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30994460
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/12469
work_keys_str_mv AT bleckersaul interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy
AT pandyarishi interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy
AT storksusan interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy
AT manndevin interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy
AT kupermangilad interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy
AT shelleydonna interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy
AT austrianjonathans interruptiveversusnoninterruptiveclinicaldecisionsupportusabilitystudy