Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25843931›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2015

Understanding barriers and facilitators to the use of Clinical Information Systems for intensive care units and Anesthesia Record Keeping: A rapid ethnography.

Jason J Saleem, William R Plew, Ross C Speir, Jennifer Herout, Nancy R Wilck, Dale Marie Ryan, Theresa A Cullen, Jean M Scott, Murielle S Beene, Toni Phillips

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Clinician-Driven Design ofIEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jason J SaleemHuman Factors Engineering, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA; Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. Electronic address: jason.saleem@louisville.edu.
William R PlewHuman Factors Engineering, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Ross C SpeirHuman Factors Engineering, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Jennifer HeroutHuman Factors Engineering, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Nancy R WilckHuman Factors Engineering, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Dale Marie RyanOffice of the Chief of Nursing Informatics, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Theresa A CullenHealth Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Jean M ScottInformatics Patient Safety, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Murielle S BeeneOffice of the Chief of Nursing Informatics, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Toni PhillipsOffice of the Chief of Nursing Informatics, Health Informatics, Office of Informatics and Analytics, Veterans Health Administration, Washington, DC, USA.

Funding

Understanding Variations in CPRS Use Among Primary Care CliniciansI01HX000190 · VA · RLR VA MEDICAL CENTER · PI FRANKEL, RICHARD M., SALEEM, JASON JAMIL · 2009 to 2013
–
HSRD VA I01 HX000190
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study evaluated the current use of commercial-off-the-shelf Clinical Information Systems (CIS) for intensive care units (ICUs) and Anesthesia Record Keeping (ARK) for operating rooms and post-anesthesia care recovery settings at three Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs). Clinicians and administrative staff use these applications at bedside workstations, in operating rooms, at nursing stations, in physician's rooms, and in other various settings. The intention of a CIS or an ARK system is to facilitate creation of electronic records of data, assessments, and procedures from multiple medical devices. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Office of the Chief of Nursing Informatics sought to understand usage barriers and facilitators to optimize these systems in the future. Therefore, a human factors study was carried out to observe the CIS and ARK systems in use at three VAMCs in order to identify best practices and suggested improvements to currently implemented CIS and ARK systems.

methodsWe conducted a rapid ethnographic study of clinical end-users interacting with the CIS and ARK systems in the critical care and anesthesia care areas in each of three geographically distributed VAMCs. Two observers recorded interactions and/or interview responses from 88 CIS and ARK end-users. We coded and sorted into logical categories field notes from 69 shadowed participants. The team transcribed and combined data from key informant interviews with 19 additional participants with the observation data. We then integrated findings across observations into meaningful patterns and abstracted the data into themes, which translated directly to barriers to effective adoption and optimization of the CIS and ARK systems.

resultsEffective optimization of the CIS and ARK systems was impeded by: (1) integration issues with other software systems; (2) poor usability; (3) software challenges; (4) hardware challenges; (5) training concerns; (6) unclear roles and lack of coordination among stakeholders; and (7) insufficient technical support. Many of these barriers are multi-faceted and have associated sub-barriers, which are described in detail along with relevant quotes from participants. In addition, regionalized purchases of different CIS and ARK systems, as opposed to enterprise level purchases, contributed to some of the identified barriers. Facilitators to system use included (1) automation and (2) a dedicated facility-level CIS-ARK Coordinator.

conclusionsWe identified barriers that explain some of the challenges with the optimization of the CIS and ARK commercial systems across the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). To help address these barriers, and evolve them into facilitators, we categorized report findings as (1) interface and system-level changes that vendors or VA healthcare systems can implement; (2) implementation factors under VA control and not under VA control; and (3) factors that may be used to inform future application purchases. We outline several recommendations for improved adoption of CIS and ARK systems and further recommend that human factors engineering and usability requirements become an integral part of VA health information technology (HIT) application procurement, customization, and implementation in order to help eliminate or mitigate some of the barriers of use identified in this study. Human factors engineering methods can be utilized to apply a user-centered approach to application requirements specification, application evaluation, system integration, and application implementation.

Indexed as

AnesthesiaAnthropology, CulturalDelivery of Health CareElectronic Health RecordsHumansIntensive Care UnitsMedical InformaticsAnesthesia Record Keeping (ARK)Clinical Information Systems (CIS)Human factors engineeringIntensive care units (ICUs)Sociotechnical systemsUsabilityUser centered design

Identifiers

PMID25843931
PMCPMC5600485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.