Usability Evaluation of Electronic Health Record System around Clinical Notes Usage-An Ethnographic Study.

Background A substantial gap exists between current Electronic Health Record (EHR) usability and potential optimal usability. One of the fundamental reasons for this discrepancy is poor incorporation of a User-Centered Design (UCD) approach during the Graphical User Interface (GUI) development process. Objective To evaluate usability strengths and weaknesses of two widely implemented EHR GUIs for critical clinical notes usage tasks. Methods Twelve Internal Medicine resident physicians interacting with one of the two EHR systems (System-1 at Location-A and System-2 at Location-B) were observed by two usability evaluators employing an ethnographic approach. User comments and observer findings were analyzed for two critical tasks: (1) clinical notes entry and (2) related information-seeking tasks. Data were analyzed from two standpoints: (1) usability references categorized by usability evaluators as positive, negative, or equivocal and (2) usability impact of each feature measured through a 7-point severity rating scale. Findings were also validated by user responses to a post observation questionnaire. Results For clinical notes entry, System-1 surpassed System-2 with more positive (26% vs. 12%) than negative (12% vs. 34%) usability references. Greatest impact features on EHR usability (severity score pertaining to each feature) for clinical notes entry were: autopopulation (6), screen options (5.5), communication (5), copy pasting (4.5), error prevention (4.5), edit ability (4), and dictation and transcription (3.5). Both systems performed equally well on information-seeking tasks and features with greatest impacts on EHR usability were navigation for notes (7) and others (e.g., looking for ancillary data; 5.5). Ethnographic observations were supported by follow-up questionnaire responses. Conclusion This study provides usability-specific insights to inform future, improved, EHR interface that is better aligned with UCD approach.

Identifying Variability in Mental Models Within and Between Disciplines Caring for the Cardiac Surgical Patient.

BACKGROUND: The cardiac operating room is a complex environment requiring efficient and effective communication between multiple disciplines. The objectives of this study were to identify and rank critical time points during the perioperative care of cardiac surgical patients, and to assess variability in responses, as a correlate of a shared mental model, regarding the importance of these time points between and within disciplines. METHODS: Using Delphi technique methodology, panelists from 3 institutions were tasked with developing a list of critical time points, which were subsequently assigned to pause point (PP) categories. Panelists then rated these PPs on a 100-point visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were expressed as percentages, medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs). We defined low response variability between panelists as an IQR ≤ 20, moderate response variability as an IQR > 20 and ≤ 40, and high response variability as an IQR > 40. RESULTS: Panelists identified a total of 12 PPs. The PPs identified by the highest number of panelists were (1) before surgical incision, (2) before aortic cannulation, (3) before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) initiation, (4) before CPB separation, and (5) at time of transfer of care from operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) staff. There was low variability among panelists' ratings of the PP "before surgical incision," moderate response variability for the PPs "before separation from CPB," "before transfer from OR table to bed," and "at time of transfer of care from OR to ICU staff," and high response variability for the remaining 8 PPs. In addition, the perceived importance of each of these PPs varies between disciplines and between institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgical providers recognize distinct critical time points during cardiac surgery. However, there is a high degree of variability within and between disciplines as to the importance of these times, suggesting an absence of a shared mental model among disciplines caring for cardiac surgical patients during the perioperative period. A lack of a shared mental model could be one of the factors contributing to preventable errors in cardiac operating rooms.

Usability Evaluation of an EHR's Clinical Notes Interface from the Perspective of Attending and Resident Physicians: An Exploratory Study.

Usability gaps between current and future improved Electronic Health Record (EHR) system designs exist due to insufficient incorporation of User-Centered Design (UCD) principles during System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). Usability of a commercial, inpatient EHR clinical notes documentation interface was analyzed from standpoints of two provider groups employing two standardized patient cases. Both objective and subjective data were collected from attending (n = 6) and resident physicians (n = 8) through usability testing employing a mixed method approach. The study results suggested that (i) EHR usability and desirability is influenced by user characteristics, (ii) workloads associated with H&P and progress notes writing are perceived differently between two groups, (iii) repeated task performance improves user efficiency and (iv) user performance is correlated to their subjective system assessments. Understanding usability of clinical documentation interface from perspectives of two different user groups, provides interface designers with an opportunity to develop an EHR system centered on UCD principles.

A comparative observational study of inpatient clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles adopted by physicians.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to understand physicians' usage of inpatient notes by (i) ascertaining different clinical note-entry and reading/retrieval styles in two different and widely used Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems, (ii) extrapolating potential factors leading to adoption of various note-entry and reading/retrieval styles and (iii) determining the amount of time to task associated with documenting different types of clinical notes. METHODS: In order to answer "what" and "why" questions on physicians' adoption of certain-note-entry and reading/retrieval styles, an ethnographic study entailing Internal Medicine residents, with a mixed data analysis approach was performed. Participants were observed interacting with two different EHR systems in inpatient settings. Data was collected around the use and creation of History and Physical (H&P) notes, progress notes and discharge summaries. RESULTS: The highest variability in template styles was observed with progress notes and the least variability was within discharge summaries, while note-writing styles were most consistent for H&P notes. The first sections to be read in a H&P and progress note were the Chief Complaint and Assessment & Plan sections, respectively. The greatest note retrieval variability, with respect to the order of how note sections were reviewed, was observed with H&P and progress notes. Physician preference for adopting a certain reading/retrieval order appeared to be a function of what best fits their workflow while fulfilling the stimulus demands. The time spent entering H&P, discharge summaries and progress notes were similar in both EHRs. CONCLUSION: This research study unveils existing variability in clinical documentation processes and provides us with important information that could help in designing a next generation EHR Graphical User Interface (GUI) that is more congruent with physicians' mental models, task performance needs, and workflow requirements.

Human factors issues in the intensive care unit.

In the context of an aging population, more critically ill patients, and a change in intensive care unit (ICU) services stemming from advances in technology, prevalent medical errors and staff burnout in the ICU are not surprising. The ICU provides ample opportunity for human factors experts to apply their knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of human capabilities to design more effective care delivery. Human factors experts design work processes, technology, and environmental factors to effectively and constructively channel the attention and behavior of those providing care; a few areas of focus can have marked impacts on care delivery and patient outcomes. In this review, we focus on these 3 areas and investigate the solutions and problems addressed by previous research.