ArticleApplied clinical informatics2022
Improving the User Experience with Discount Site-Specific User Testing.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Multiyear Survey Evaluating Clinician Electronic Health Record Satisfaction.Applied clinical informatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPoor electronic health record (EHR) usability is associated with patient safety concerns, user dissatisfaction, and provider burnout. EHR certification requires vendors to perform user testing. However, there are no such requirements for site-specific implementations. Health care organizations customize EHR implementations, potentially introducing usability problems. Site-specific usability evaluations may help to identify these concerns, and "discount" usability methods afford health systems a means of doing so even without dedicated usability specialists. This report characterizes a site-specific discount user testing program launched at an academic medical center. We describe lessons learned and highlight three of the EHR features in detail to demonstrate the impact of testing on implementation decisions and on users.
methodsThirteen new EHR features which had already undergone heuristic evaluation and iterative design were evaluated over the course of three user test events. Each event included five to six users. Participants used think aloud technique. Measures of user efficiency, effectiveness, and satisfaction were collected. Usability concerns were characterized by the type of usability heuristic violated and by correctability.
resultsUsability concerns occurred at a rate of 2.5 per feature tested. Seventy percent of the usability concerns were deemed correctable prior to implementation. The first highlighted feature was moved to production despite low single ease question (SEQ) scores which may have predicted its subsequent withdrawal from production based on post implementation feedback. Another feature was rebuilt based on usability findings, and a new version was retested and moved to production. A third feature highlights an easily correctable usability concern identified in user testing. Quantitative usability metrics generally reinforced qualitative findings.
conclusionSimplified user testing with a limited number of participants identifies correctable usability concerns, even after heuristic evaluation. Our discount usability approach to site-specific usability has a role in implementations and may improve the usability of the EHR for the end user.
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.