ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024
Avoiding Unintended Consequences of Pediatric Blood Order Set Updates through In Situ Usability Testing.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation and Evaluation of an Alternative Electronic Health Record Tool for Ordering Blood Products in Pediatric Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation: Mixed Methods Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Realizing the Full Potential of Clinical Decision Support: Translating Usability Testing into Routine Practice in Health Care Operations.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlood product ordering is a complex process and mistakes can harm patients and lead to poor outcomes. Orders and order sets can be designed to help mitigate errors, but major changes in design can unintentionally cause new errors.
objectivesOur objective was as follows: (1) utilize formative in situ usability testing to iteratively improve the design of a redesigned blood product order set prior to go-live, (2) implement changes based on feedback derived from this testing, and (3) compare the error rate, system usability scale (SUS) score, time to task completion, and click counts between the prior order set in use at the time and the revised redesigned order set.
methodsA multidisciplinary project team convened to redesign blood product orders and order sets from scratch based on a review of the literature and benchmarking against four pediatric academic institutions with the goal of addressing prior ordering errors. The newly redesigned blood product order set was iteratively updated via in situ formative usability testing performed with available clinical users using a concurrent think-aloud protocol in real clinical environments. Errors, SUS scores, time to task completion, and click counts were assessed for the revised redesigned order set using summative testing.
resultsFormative usability testing with 20 participants led to seven design changes in the redesigned order set which reduced the error rate at go-live. Summative usability testing showed that even though the usability scores were only slightly improved for the revised redesigned order set, the error rates in blood orders were significantly decreased.
conclusionUsability testing can identify design errors early in the process which can be rectified prior to implementation, thus avoiding unintended consequences of changes.
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.