Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38765769›Full record

ArticleHuman factors in healthcare2023

Post-implementation usability evaluation of a human factors-based clinical decision support for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis (Dx): PE Dx Study Part 1.

Megan E Salwei, Peter L T Hoonakker, Michael Pulia, Douglas Wiegmann, Brian W Patterson, Pascale Carayon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human factors in healthcare, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

6 authors.

Megan E SalweiCenter for Research and Innovation in Systems Safety, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Peter L T HoonakkerWisconsin Institute for Healthcare Systems Engineering, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Michael PuliaWisconsin Institute for Healthcare Systems Engineering, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Douglas WiegmannWisconsin Institute for Healthcare Systems Engineering, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Brian W PattersonWisconsin Institute for Healthcare Systems Engineering, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Pascale CarayonWisconsin Institute for Healthcare Systems Engineering, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
AHRQ HHS K01 HS029042AHRQ HHS K08 HS024558AHRQ HHS K12 HS026395AHRQ HHS R01 HS022086NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While there is promise for health IT, such as Clinical Decision Support (CDS), to improve patient safety and clinician efficiency, poor usability has hindered widespread use of these tools. Human Factors (HF) principles and methods remain the gold standard for health IT design; however, there is limited information on how HF methods and principles influence CDS usability "in the wild". In this study, we explore the usability of an HF-based CDS used in the clinical environment; the CDS was designed according to a human-centered design process, which is described in Carayon et al. (2020). In this study, we interviewed 12 emergency medicine physicians, identifying 294 excerpts of barriers and facilitators of the CDS. Sixty-eight percent of excerpts related to the HF principles applied in the human-centered design of the CDS. The remaining 32% of excerpts related to 18 inductively-created categories, which highlight gaps in the CDS design process. Several barriers were related to the physical environment and organization work system elements as well as physicians' broader workflow in the emergency department (e.g., teamwork). This study expands our understanding of the usability outcomes of HF-based CDS "in the wild". We demonstrate the value of HF principles in the usability of CDS and identify areas for improvement to future human-centered design of CDS. The relationship between these usability outcomes and the HCD process is explored in an accompanying Part 2 manuscript.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision SupportHealth ITHuman-Centered DesignHuman FactorsUsability Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38765769
PMCPMC11099629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.