ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2018
Development and evaluation of a novel user interface for reviewing clinical microbiology results.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physicians' gender and their use of electronic health records: findings from a mixed-methods usability study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Microbiology laboratory results are complex and cumbersome to review. We sought to develop a new review tool to improve the ease and accuracy of microbiology results review. Methods: We observed and informally interviewed clinicians to determine areas in which existing microbiology review tools were lacking. We developed a new tool that reorganizes microbiology results by time and organism. We conducted a scenario-based usability evaluation to compare the new tool to existing legacy tools, using a balanced block design. Results: The average time-on-task decreased from 45.3 min for the legacy tools to 27.1 min for the new tool (P < .0001). Total errors decreased from 41 with the legacy tools to 19 with the new tool (P = .0068). The average Single Ease Question score was 5.65 (out of 7) for the new tool, compared to 3.78 for the legacy tools (P < .0001). The new tool scored 88 ("Excellent") on the System Usability Scale. Conclusions: The new tool substantially improved efficiency, accuracy, and usability. It was subsequently integrated into the electronic health record and rolled out system-wide. This project provides an example of how clinical and informatics teams can innovative alongside a commercial Electronic Health Record (EHR).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.