Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32245467›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2020

Evaluating users' experiences of electronic prescribing systems in relation to patient safety: a mixed methods study.

Lisa Aufegger, Naresh Serou, Shiping Chen, Bryony Dean Franklin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05493072 (Safety, Performance, and User Perceptions of RxConnect When Used to Provide Patient-specific, Indication Based Prescribing Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

NCT05493072 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Safety, Performance, and User Perceptions of RxConnect When Used to Provide Patient-specific, Indication Based Prescribing Support

TypeinterventionalSponsorImperial College LondonRan2022 to 2023Enrolled24ConditionsBehaviorArmsRxConnect
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Lisa AufeggerNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PE, UK. l.aufegger@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2332-8677
Naresh SerouNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PE, UK.
Shiping ChenTsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Bryony Dean FranklinNIHR Imperial Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, Imperial College London, London, W2 1PE, UK.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBNIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre · GBTsinghua University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUser interface (UI) design features such as screen layout, density of information, and use of colour may affect the usability of electronic prescribing (EP) systems, with usability problems previously associated with medication errors. To identify how to improve existing systems, our aim was to explore prescribers' perspectives of UI features of a commercially available EP system, and how these may affect patient safety.

methodsTwo studies were conducted, each including ten participants prescribing a penicillin for a test patient with a penicillin allergy. In study 1, eye-gaze tracking was used as a means to explore visual attention and behaviour during prescribing, followed by a self-reported EP system usability scale. In study 2, a think-aloud method and semi-structured interview were applied to explore participants' thoughts and views on prescribing, with a focus on UI design and patient safety.

resultsStudy 1 showed high visual attention toward information on allergies and patient information, allergy pop-up alerts, and medication order review and confirmation, with less visual attention on adding medication. The system's usability was rated 'below average'. In study 2, participants highlighted EP design features and workflow, including screen layout and information overload as being important for patient safety, benefits of EP systems such as keeping a record of relevant information, and suggestions for improvement in relation to system design (colour, fonts, customization) and patient interaction.

conclusionsSpecific UI design factors were identified that may improve the usability and/or safety of EP systems. It is suggested that eye-gaze tracking and think-aloud methods are used in future experimental research in this area. Limitations include the small sample size; further work should include similar studies on other EP systems.

Indexed as

Electronic PrescribingHumansMedication ErrorsPatientsPatient SafetyUser-Computer InterfaceElectronic prescribing systemEye-trackingThink-aloud methodUser experienceUser interface

Identifiers

PMID32245467
PMCPMC7126479
OpenAlexW3014841401

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.