Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems: Metrics and Evaluation Methods for eHealth Systems.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Electronic healthcare records have become central to patient care. Evaluation of new systems include a variety of usability evaluation methods or usability metrics (often referred to interchangeably as usability components or usability attributes). This study reviews the breadth of usability evaluation methods, metrics, and associated measurement techniques that have been reported to assess systems designed for hospital staff to assess inpatient clinical condition. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we searched Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Open Grey from 1986 to 2019. For included studies, we recorded usability evaluation methods or usability metrics as appropriate, and any measurement techniques applied to illustrate these. We classified and described all usability evaluation methods, usability metrics, and measurement techniques. Study quality was evaluated using a modified Downs and Black checklist. RESULTS: The search identified 1336 studies. After abstract screening, 130 full texts were reviewed. In the 51 included studies 11 distinct usability evaluation methods were identified. Within these usability evaluation methods, seven usability metrics were reported. The most common metrics were ISO9241-11 and Nielsen's components. An additional "usefulness" metric was reported in almost 40% of included studies. We identified 70 measurement techniques used to evaluate systems. Overall study quality was reflected in a mean modified Downs and Black checklist score of 6.8/10 (range 1-9) 33% studies classified as "high-quality" (scoring eight or higher), 51% studies "moderate-quality" (scoring 6-7), and the remaining 16% (scoring below five) were "low-quality." CONCLUSION: There is little consistency within the field of electronic health record systems evaluation. This review highlights the variability within usability methods, metrics, and reporting. Standardized processes may improve evaluation and comparison electronic health record systems and improve their development and implementation.

The Safer Delivery of Surgical Services Program (S3): Explaining Its Differential Effectiveness and Exploring Implications for Improving Quality in Complex Systems.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the challenges encountered during surgical quality improvement interventions, and explain the relative success of different intervention strategies. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Understanding why and how interventions work is vital for developing improvement science. The S3 Program of studies tested whether combining interventions addressing culture and system was more likely to result in improvement than either approach alone. Quantitative results supported this theory. This qualitative study investigates why this happened, what aspects of the interventions and their implementation most affected improvement, and the implications for similar programs. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with hospital staff (23) and research team members (11) involved in S3 studies. Analysis was based on the constant comparative method, with coding conducted concurrently with data collection. Themes were identified and developed in relation to the program theory behind S3. RESULTS: The superior performance of combined intervention over single intervention arms appeared related to greater awareness and ability to act, supporting the S3 hypothesis. However, we also noted unforeseen differences in implementation that seemed to amplify this difference. The greater ambition and more sophisticated approach in combined intervention arms resulted in requests for more intensive expert support, which seemed crucial in their success. The contextual challenges encountered have potential implications for the replicability and sustainability of the approach. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the S3 hypothesis, triangulating with quantitative results and providing an explanatory account of the causal relationship between interventions and outcomes. They also highlight the importance of implementation strategies, and of factors outside the control of program designers.

A survey of expert opinion on the effects of occupational exposures to trunk rotation and whole-body vibration.

We present a review of current expert opinion on the effects of combined exposures to trunk rotation and whole-body vibration (WBV), commonly experienced by operators of agricultural machinery. We evaluate the level of agreement between academic experts in the field of ergonomics, human response to WBV and agricultural operators, on the effects of exposure to WBV and trunk rotation. A total of 83 individuals responded to the paper-based questionnaire, which included questions on risk levels from individual and combined exposures, discomfort development, exposure duration limits and tasks within agriculture. The results showed that all groups considered exposure to WBV and trunk rotation as risk factors for the development of back pain. The experts were not in consensus regarding acceptable exposure durations, areas of discomfort experienced or recommendations for cab developments.

Oxford NOTECHS II: a modified theatre team non-technical skills scoring system.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed and validated the Oxford NOTECHS rating system for evaluating the non-technical skills of an entire operating theatre team. Experience with the scale identified the need for greater discrimination between levels of performance within the normal range. We report here the development of a modified scale (Oxford NOTECHS II) to facilitate this. The new measure uses an eight-point instead of a four point scale to measure each dimension of non-technical skills, and begins with a default rating of 6 for each element. We evaluated this new scale in 297 operations at five NHS sites in four surgical specialities. Measures of theatre process reliability (glitch count) and compliance with the WHO surgical safety checklist were scored contemporaneously, and relationships with NOTECHS II scores explored. RESULTS: Mean team Oxford NOTECHS II scores was 73.39 (range 37-92). The means for surgical, anaesthetic and nursing sub-teams were 24.61 (IQR 23, 27); 24.22 (IQR 23, 26) and 24.55 (IQR 23, 26). Oxford NOTECHS II showed good inter-rater reliability between human factors and clinical observers in each of the four domains. Teams with high WHO compliance had higher mean Oxford NOTECHS II scores (74.5) than those with low compliance (71.1) (p = 0.010). We observed only a weak correlation between Oxford NOTECHS II scores and glitch count; r = -0.26 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.15). Oxford NOTECHS II scores did not vary significantly between 5 different hospital sites, but a significant difference was seen between specialities (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oxford NOTECHS II provides good discrimination between teams while retaining reliability and correlation with other measures of teamwork performance, and is not confounded by technical performance. It is therefore suitable for combined use with a technical performance scale to provide a global description of operating theatre team performance.