Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35536613›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation.

Hwayoung Cho, Gail Keenan, Olatunde O Madandola, Fabiana Cristina Dos Santos, Tamara G R Macieira, Ragnhildur I Bjarnadottir, Karen J B Priola, Karen Dunn Lopez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

8 authors.

Hwayoung ChoCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6023-5309
Gail KeenanCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6364-2524
Olatunde O MadandolaCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8849-8434
Fabiana Cristina Dos SantosCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9780-4336
Tamara G R MacieiraCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1100-3760
Ragnhildur I BjarnadottirCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6325-1200
Karen J B PriolaCollege of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7161-4398
Karen Dunn LopezCollege of Nursing, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9700-941X

Funding

Tailored Clinical Decision Support Formats Designed to Improve Palliative Care for Cancer and Chronically Ill Patients: A Pre-Clinical TestR01NR018416 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI DUNN LOPEZ, KAREN, KEENAN, GAIL M · 2019 to 2021
$1.7M
NINR NIH HHS R01 NR018416
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPoor usability is a primary cause of unintended consequences related to the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, which negatively impacts patient safety. Due to the cost and time needed to carry out iterative evaluations, many EHR components, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), have not undergone rigorous usability testing prior to their deployment in clinical practice. Usability testing in the predeployment phase is crucial to eliminating usability issues and preventing costly fixes that will be needed if these issues are found after the system's implementation.

objectiveThis study presents an example application of a systematic evaluation method that uses clinician experts with human-computer interaction (HCI) expertise to evaluate the usability of an electronic clinical decision support (CDS) intervention prior to its deployment in a randomized controlled trial.

methodsWe invited 6 HCI experts to participate in a heuristic evaluation of our CDS intervention. Each expert was asked to independently explore the intervention at least twice. After completing the assigned tasks using patient scenarios, each expert completed a heuristic evaluation checklist developed by Bright et al based on Nielsen's 10 heuristics. The experts also rated the overall severity of each identified heuristic violation on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problems and 4 indicates a usability catastrophe. Data from the experts' coded comments were synthesized, and the severity of each identified usability heuristic was analyzed.

resultsThe 6 HCI experts included professionals from the fields of nursing (n=4), pharmaceutical science (n=1), and systems engineering (n=1). The mean overall severity scores of the identified heuristic violations ranged from 0.66 (flexibility and efficiency of use) to 2.00 (user control and freedom and error prevention), in which scores closer to 0 indicate a more usable system. The heuristic principle user control and freedom was identified as the most in need of refinement and, particularly by nonnursing HCI experts, considered as having major usability problems. In response to the heuristic match between system and the real world, the experts pointed to the reversed direction of our system's pain scale scores (1=severe pain) compared to those commonly used in clinical practice (typically 1=mild pain); although this was identified as a minor usability problem, its refinement was repeatedly emphasized by nursing HCI experts.

conclusionsOur heuristic evaluation process is simple and systematic and can be used at multiple stages of system development to reduce the time and cost needed to establish the usability of a system before its widespread implementation. Furthermore, heuristic evaluations can help organizations develop transparent reporting protocols for usability, as required by Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act. Testing of EHRs and CDSSs by clinicians with HCI expertise in heuristic evaluation processes has the potential to reduce the frequency of testing while increasing its quality, which may reduce clinicians' cognitive workload and errors and enhance the adoption of EHRs and CDSSs.

Indexed as

clinical decision supportelectronic health recordevaluationexpert reviewheuristichuman-computer interactionusabilityuser interface

Identifiers

PMID35536613
PMCPMC9090311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.