Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31875648›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2019

Formative Usability Testing Reduces Severe Blood Product Ordering Errors.

Evan W Orenstein, Jeanne Boudreaux, Margo Rollins, Jennifer Jones, Christy Bryant, Dean Karavite, Naveen Muthu, Jessica Hike, Herb Williams, Tania Kilgore and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. A Discount Approach to Reducing Nursing Alert Burden.Applied clinical informatics · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors.

Evan W OrensteinDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Jeanne BoudreauxDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Margo RollinsAflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Program, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Jennifer JonesAflac Cancer and Blood Disorders Program, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Christy BryantInformation Services and Technology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Dean KaraviteDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Naveen MuthuDepartment of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Jessica HikeInformation Services and Technology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Herb WilliamsInformation Services and Technology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Tania KilgoreInformation Services and Technology, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Alexis B CarterDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.
Cassandra D JosephsonDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BloodDecision Support Systems, ClinicalHumansMedical ErrorsUser-Computer Interface

Identifiers

PMID31875648
PMCPMC6930842

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.