ArticleApplied clinical informatics2019
Formative Usability Testing Reduces Severe Blood Product Ordering Errors.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Agile, Easily Applicable, and Useful eHealth Usability Evaluations: Systematic Review and Expert-Validation.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Pooled it
- Displaying Cost and Completion Time for Reference Laboratory Test Orders-A Randomized Controlled Trial.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Trial
- Implementation and Evaluation of an Alternative Electronic Health Record Tool for Ordering Blood Products in Pediatric Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation: Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Realizing the Full Potential of Clinical Decision Support: Translating Usability Testing into Routine Practice in Health Care Operations.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- A Discount Approach to Reducing Nursing Alert Burden.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Avoiding Unintended Consequences of Pediatric Blood Order Set Updates through In Situ Usability Testing.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Usability Testing of Situation Awareness Clinical Decision Support in the Intensive Care Unit.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Addressing Alert Fatigue by Replacing a Burdensome Interruptive Alert with Passive Clinical Decision Support.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- User-Centered Design and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support to Improve Early Peanut Introduction: Formative Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Reducing Therapeutic Duplication in Inpatient Medication Orders.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- User-Centered Design to Reduce Inappropriate Blood Transfusion Orders.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
- Influence of user-centered clinical decision support on pediatric blood product ordering errors.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2023Article
- Human-centered design of clinical decision support for management of hypertension with chronic kidney disease.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Article
- Dig Deeper: A Case Report of Finding (and Fixing) the Root Cause of Add-On Laboratory Failures.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Review
- Developing an Educational Website for Women With Endometriosis-Associated Dyspareunia: Usability and Stigma Analysis.JMIR human factors · 2022Article
- Clinician Perceptions on the Use of Free-Text Communication Orders.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- The Effect of Electronic Health Record Usability Redesign on Annual Screening Rates in an Ambulatory Setting.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical errors in blood product orders and administration are common, especially for pediatric patients. A failure modes and effects analysis in our health care system indicated high risk from the electronic blood ordering process.
objectivesThere are two objectives of this study as follows:(1) To describe differences in the design of the original blood product orders and order sets in the system (original design), new orders and order sets designed by expert committee (DEC), and a third-version developed through user-centered design (UCD).(2) To compare the number and type of ordering errors, task completion rates, time on task, and user preferences between the original design and that developed via UCD.
methodsA multidisciplinary expert committee proposed adjustments to existing blood product order sets resulting in the DEC order set. When that order set was tested with front-line users, persistent failure modes were detected, so orders and order sets were redesigned again via formative usability testing. Front-line users in their native clinical workspaces were observed ordering blood in realistic simulated scenarios using a think-aloud protocol. Iterative adjustments were made between participants. In summative testing, participants were randomized to use the original design or UCD for five simulated scenarios. We evaluated differences in ordering errors, time on task, and users' design preference with two-sample
resultsFormative usability testing with 27 providers from seven specialties led to 18 changes made to the DEC to produce the UCD. In summative testing, error-free task completion for the original design was 36%, which increased to 66% in UCD (30%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.9-57%;
conclusionUCD led to substantially different blood product orders and order sets than DEC. Users made fewer errors when ordering blood products for pediatric patients in simulated scenarios when using the UCD orders and order sets compared with the original design.
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.