Cargando…

Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation

BACKGROUND: Poor usability is a primary cause of unintended consequences related to the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, which negatively impacts patient safety. Due to the cost and time needed to carry out iterative evaluations, many EHR components, such as clinical decision support s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Hwayoung, Keenan, Gail, Madandola, Olatunde O, Dos Santos, Fabiana Cristina, Macieira, Tamara G R, Bjarnadottir, Ragnhildur I, Priola, Karen J B, Dunn Lopez, Karen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9090311/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35536613
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/31758
_version_ 1784704695516790784
author Cho, Hwayoung
Keenan, Gail
Madandola, Olatunde O
Dos Santos, Fabiana Cristina
Macieira, Tamara G R
Bjarnadottir, Ragnhildur I
Priola, Karen J B
Dunn Lopez, Karen
author_facet Cho, Hwayoung
Keenan, Gail
Madandola, Olatunde O
Dos Santos, Fabiana Cristina
Macieira, Tamara G R
Bjarnadottir, Ragnhildur I
Priola, Karen J B
Dunn Lopez, Karen
author_sort Cho, Hwayoung
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Poor usability is a primary cause of unintended consequences related to the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, which negatively impacts patient safety. Due to the cost and time needed to carry out iterative evaluations, many EHR components, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), have not undergone rigorous usability testing prior to their deployment in clinical practice. Usability testing in the predeployment phase is crucial to eliminating usability issues and preventing costly fixes that will be needed if these issues are found after the system’s implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study presents an example application of a systematic evaluation method that uses clinician experts with human-computer interaction (HCI) expertise to evaluate the usability of an electronic clinical decision support (CDS) intervention prior to its deployment in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We invited 6 HCI experts to participate in a heuristic evaluation of our CDS intervention. Each expert was asked to independently explore the intervention at least twice. After completing the assigned tasks using patient scenarios, each expert completed a heuristic evaluation checklist developed by Bright et al based on Nielsen’s 10 heuristics. The experts also rated the overall severity of each identified heuristic violation on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problems and 4 indicates a usability catastrophe. Data from the experts’ coded comments were synthesized, and the severity of each identified usability heuristic was analyzed. RESULTS: The 6 HCI experts included professionals from the fields of nursing (n=4), pharmaceutical science (n=1), and systems engineering (n=1). The mean overall severity scores of the identified heuristic violations ranged from 0.66 (flexibility and efficiency of use) to 2.00 (user control and freedom and error prevention), in which scores closer to 0 indicate a more usable system. The heuristic principle user control and freedom was identified as the most in need of refinement and, particularly by nonnursing HCI experts, considered as having major usability problems. In response to the heuristic match between system and the real world, the experts pointed to the reversed direction of our system’s pain scale scores (1=severe pain) compared to those commonly used in clinical practice (typically 1=mild pain); although this was identified as a minor usability problem, its refinement was repeatedly emphasized by nursing HCI experts. CONCLUSIONS: Our heuristic evaluation process is simple and systematic and can be used at multiple stages of system development to reduce the time and cost needed to establish the usability of a system before its widespread implementation. Furthermore, heuristic evaluations can help organizations develop transparent reporting protocols for usability, as required by Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act. Testing of EHRs and CDSSs by clinicians with HCI expertise in heuristic evaluation processes has the potential to reduce the frequency of testing while increasing its quality, which may reduce clinicians’ cognitive workload and errors and enhance the adoption of EHRs and CDSSs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9090311
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-90903112022-05-11 Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation Cho, Hwayoung Keenan, Gail Madandola, Olatunde O Dos Santos, Fabiana Cristina Macieira, Tamara G R Bjarnadottir, Ragnhildur I Priola, Karen J B Dunn Lopez, Karen JMIR Hum Factors Original Paper BACKGROUND: Poor usability is a primary cause of unintended consequences related to the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, which negatively impacts patient safety. Due to the cost and time needed to carry out iterative evaluations, many EHR components, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), have not undergone rigorous usability testing prior to their deployment in clinical practice. Usability testing in the predeployment phase is crucial to eliminating usability issues and preventing costly fixes that will be needed if these issues are found after the system’s implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study presents an example application of a systematic evaluation method that uses clinician experts with human-computer interaction (HCI) expertise to evaluate the usability of an electronic clinical decision support (CDS) intervention prior to its deployment in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We invited 6 HCI experts to participate in a heuristic evaluation of our CDS intervention. Each expert was asked to independently explore the intervention at least twice. After completing the assigned tasks using patient scenarios, each expert completed a heuristic evaluation checklist developed by Bright et al based on Nielsen’s 10 heuristics. The experts also rated the overall severity of each identified heuristic violation on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problems and 4 indicates a usability catastrophe. Data from the experts’ coded comments were synthesized, and the severity of each identified usability heuristic was analyzed. RESULTS: The 6 HCI experts included professionals from the fields of nursing (n=4), pharmaceutical science (n=1), and systems engineering (n=1). The mean overall severity scores of the identified heuristic violations ranged from 0.66 (flexibility and efficiency of use) to 2.00 (user control and freedom and error prevention), in which scores closer to 0 indicate a more usable system. The heuristic principle user control and freedom was identified as the most in need of refinement and, particularly by nonnursing HCI experts, considered as having major usability problems. In response to the heuristic match between system and the real world, the experts pointed to the reversed direction of our system’s pain scale scores (1=severe pain) compared to those commonly used in clinical practice (typically 1=mild pain); although this was identified as a minor usability problem, its refinement was repeatedly emphasized by nursing HCI experts. CONCLUSIONS: Our heuristic evaluation process is simple and systematic and can be used at multiple stages of system development to reduce the time and cost needed to establish the usability of a system before its widespread implementation. Furthermore, heuristic evaluations can help organizations develop transparent reporting protocols for usability, as required by Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act. Testing of EHRs and CDSSs by clinicians with HCI expertise in heuristic evaluation processes has the potential to reduce the frequency of testing while increasing its quality, which may reduce clinicians’ cognitive workload and errors and enhance the adoption of EHRs and CDSSs. JMIR Publications 2022-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9090311/ /pubmed/35536613 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/31758 Text en ©Hwayoung Cho, Gail Keenan, Olatunde O Madandola, Fabiana Cristina Dos Santos, Tamara G R Macieira, Ragnhildur I Bjarnadottir, Karen J B Priola, Karen Dunn Lopez. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 10.05.2022. 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 https://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Cho, Hwayoung
Keenan, Gail
Madandola, Olatunde O
Dos Santos, Fabiana Cristina
Macieira, Tamara G R
Bjarnadottir, Ragnhildur I
Priola, Karen J B
Dunn Lopez, Karen
Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation
title Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation
title_full Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation
title_fullStr Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation
title_short Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation
title_sort assessing the usability of a clinical decision support system: heuristic evaluation
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9090311/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35536613
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/31758
work_keys_str_mv AT chohwayoung assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT keenangail assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT madandolaolatundeo assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT dossantosfabianacristina assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT macieiratamaragr assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT bjarnadottirragnhilduri assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT priolakarenjb assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation
AT dunnlopezkaren assessingtheusabilityofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemheuristicevaluation