Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30061787›Full record

ArticleActa informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH2018

Usability Evaluation of Three Admission and Medical Records Subsystems Integrated into Nationwide Hospital Information Systems: Heuristic Evaluation.

Mehrdad Farzandipour, Ehsan Nabovati, Gholam-Hosein Zaeimi, Reza Khajouei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

4 authors.

Mehrdad FarzandipourHealth Information Management Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
Ehsan NabovatiHealth Information Management Research Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
Gholam-Hosein ZaeimiDepartment of Health Information Management and Technology, School of Allied Health Professions, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
Reza KhajoueiMedical Informatics Research Center, Institute for Futures Studies in Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionUsability is one of the quality criteria for information systems and its weakness is one of the main barriers to the adoption of these systems. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the usability of admission and medical records module of three widely used hospital information systems (HISs).

methodsIn this descriptive study the usability of admission and medical records module of three HISs (HIS1, HIS2, and HIS3) was evaluated using heuristic evaluation method. For each HIS, three expert users of the same system assessed the user interface independently, completed a usability evaluation checklist, and rated severity of each identified problem. The checklist was based on Nielsen's heuristics. For each HIS, three heuristics that have the highest and lowest problem rates and greatest severity of problems were categorized into three separate groups. The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

resultsAlthough HIS1 and HIS2 were used in more hospitals than HIS3, the results showed that the usability problem rates of them were significantly higher than HIS3. The heuristics of "help and documentation", "flexibility and efficiency of use", and "visibility of system status" in the three HISs were categorized into the "highest rate of problems", "lowest rate of problems", and "highest severity of problems" groups, respectively. The heuristics of "diagnose and recover from errors", "error prevention", and "help and documentation" in HIS1 and HIS2 were categorized into the "highest rate of problems" group.

conclusionsThe results of this study and previous studies show that the most common usability problems with HISs are related to heuristics of "help and documentation", "error prevention", and "help users recognize, diagnose and recover from errors." Also, the large number of hospitals using one HIS does not demonstrate its high usability to others.

Indexed as

Evaluation StudiesHospital AdministrationHospital Information SystemsUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID30061787
PMCPMC6029901

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.