Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35265926›Full record

ArticleCardiovascular digital health journal2021

Roadmap to a more useful and usable electronic health record.

John R Windle, Thomas A Windle, Ketemwabi Y Shamavu, Quinn M Nelson, Martina A Clarke, Ann L Fruhling, James E Tcheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cardiovascular digital health journal, 2021. 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. Measuring Documentation Burden in Healthcare.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Addressing Note Bloat: Solutions for Effective Clinical Documentation.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

7 authors.

John R WindleDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Thomas A WindleDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Ketemwabi Y ShamavuDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Quinn M NelsonDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Martina A ClarkeCollege of Information Science and Technology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska.
Ann L FruhlingCollege of Information Science and Technology, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska.
James E TchengDepartment of Internal Medicine/Cardiology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: A decade after the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, electronic health records (EHRs) largely remain poorly designed and contribute to clinician burnout. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand clinicians' wants, needs, and perceived barriers imposed by the EHR; implement best practices in user-centered design; and create a clinician-centered EHR framework validated via a functional EHR prototype. Methods: Usability evaluations were performed using a simulated patient with a complex clinical scenario. Convergent parallel mixed methods linked to action research and agile development were used to create an EHR prototype based on clinician-centered design. Prototype functionality was validated via a final usability evaluation. Results: Between 2015 and 2017, 53 clinicians from 8 cardiology practices (4 academic and 4 private) participated in initial evaluations of their installed EHR. In 2019, 25 clinicians participated in final evaluations of their EHR vs our EHR prototype. Initial evaluations documented that clinicians judged the EHRs as poorly designed, scoring a mean of 47.1 on the System Usability Scale. Clinicians expressed that EHRs impeded workflow and communication and prolonged their workday. In the final evaluations, no improvement in installed EHRs was found (mean score 48.1); however, the EHR prototype was assessed as significantly more usable (mean score 77.8; Conclusion: A decade after the HITECH Act, EHRs still receive low usability scores. By applying user-centered design, an EHR prototype with improved features, functionality, and workflow integration was developed. Clinician testing of the EHR prototype demonstrated it was significantly more useful and usable to clinicians, thus identifying a framework and pathway for substantive improvement of EHR systems.

Indexed as

Electronic health recordUsabilityUser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID35265926
PMCPMC8890352

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.