Design and Evaluation of an Integrated, Patient-Focused Electronic Health Record Display for Emergency MedicineFunding This study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) R01 grant (R01HS022542).
12 March 2019
12 July 2019
18 September 2019 (online)
Background Hospital emergency departments (EDs) are dynamic environments, involving coordination and shared decision making by staff who care for multiple patients simultaneously. While computerized information systems have been widely adopted in such clinical environments, serious issues have been raised related to their usability and effectiveness. In particular, there is a need to support clinicians to communicate and maintain awareness of a patient's health status, and progress through the ED plan of care.
Objective This study used work-centered usability methods to evaluate an integrated patient-focused status display designed to support ED clinicians' communication and situation awareness regarding a patient's health status and progress through their ED plan of care. The display design was informed by previous studies we conducted examining the information and cognitive support requirements of ED providers and nurses.
Methods ED nurse and provider participants were presented various scenarios requiring patient-prioritization and care-planning tasks to be performed using the prototype display. Participants rated the display in terms of its cognitive support, usability, and usefulness. Participants' performance on the various tasks, and their feedback on the display design and utility, was analyzed.
Results Participants provided ratings for usability and usefulness for the display sections using a work-centered usability questionnaire—mean scores for nurses and providers were 7.56 and 6.6 (1 being lowest and 9 being highest), respectively. General usability scores, based on the System Usability Scale tool, were rated as acceptable or marginally acceptable. Similarly, participants also rated the display highly in terms of support for specific cognitive objectives.
Conclusion A novel patient-focused status display for emergency medicine was evaluated via a simulation-based study in terms of work-centered usability and usefulness. Participants' subjective ratings of usability, usefulness, and support for cognitive objectives were encouraging. These findings, including participants' qualitative feedback, provided insights for improving the design of the display.
KeywordsEmergency Medicine - clinical decision support - interfaces and usability - human–computer interaction - cognitive systems engineering
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the lead author's Institutional Review Board (IRB), which also served as the IRB of Record for coauthors belonging to other institutions. Participants provided verbal consent to participate in the study.
- 1 Fong A, Ratwani RM. Understanding emergency medicine physicians multitasking behaviors around interruptions. Acad Emerg Med 2018; 25 (10) 1164-1168
- 2 Kellogg KM, Wang E, Fairbanks RJ, Ratwani R. 286 Sources of interruptions of emergency physicians: A pilot study. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 68 (04) S111-S112
- 3 Laxmisan A, Hakimzada F, Sayan OR, Green RA, Zhang J, Patel VL. The multitasking clinician: decision-making and cognitive demand during and after team handoffs in emergency care. Int J Med Inform 2007; 76 (11-12): 801-811
- 4 Fairbanks RJ, Bisantz AM, Sunm M. Emergency department communication links and patterns. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 50 (04) 396-406
- 5 Bisantz A, Pennathur R, Fairbanks R. , et al. Emergency department status boards: a case study in information systems transition. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 2010; 4 (01) 39-68
- 6 Taylor SP, Ledford R, Palmer V, Abel E. We need to talk: an observational study of the impact of electronic medical record implementation on hospital communication. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (07) 584-588
- 7 Farley HL, Baumlin KM, Hamedani AG. , et al. Quality and safety implications of emergency department information systems. Ann Emerg Med 2013; 62 (04) 399-407
- 8 Benda NC, Meadors ML, Hettinger AZ, Fong A, Ratwani RM. Electronic health records and interruptions: the need for new interruption management strategies. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care: Improving the Outcomes; 2015 ;4(1):70
- 9 Friedberg MW, Van Busum K, Wexler R, Bowen M, Schneider EC. A demonstration of shared decision making in primary care highlights barriers to adoption and potential remedies. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013; 32 (02) 268-275
- 10 Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC), Department of Health and Human Services. 2015 Edition Health Information Technology (Health IT) Certification Criteria, 2015 Edition Base Electronic Health Record (EHR) Definition, and ONC Health IT Certification Program Modifications. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/16/2015-25597/2015-edition-healthinformation-technology-health-it-certification-criteria-2015-edition-base . Accessed October 30, 2018
- 11 Howe JL, Adams KT, Hettinger AZ, Ratwani RM. Electronic health record usability issues and potential contribution to patient harm. JAMA 2018; 319 (12) 1276-1278
- 12 Ratwani RM, Benda NC, Hettinger AZ, Fairbanks RJ. Electronic health record vendor adherence to usability certification requirements and testing standards. JAMA 2015; 314 (10) 1070-1071
- 13 Ratwani RM, Fairbanks RJ, Hettinger AZ, Benda NC. Electronic health record usability: analysis of the user-centered design processes of eleven electronic health record vendors. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (06) 1179-1182
- 14 Cohen JK. The top 3 reasons hospitals switch EHR vendors. Becker Hospital Review Web site. April 15, 2018. Available at: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/ehrs/the-top-3-reasons-hospitals-switch-ehrvendors.html . Accessed October 30, 2018
- 15 Slabodkin G. ONC reports 4x spike in providers switching EHR vendors. Health Data Management website. September 10, 2015. Available at: https://www.healthdatamanagement.com/news/onc-reports-4x-spike-inproviders-switching-ehr-vendors . Accessed October 30, 2018
- 16 Aronsky D, Jones I, Lanaghan K, Slovis CM. Supporting patient care in the emergency department with a computerized whiteboard system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15 (02) 184-194 . Doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2489
- 17 Pennathur PR, Bisantz AM, Fairbanks RJ, Perry SJ, Zwemer F, Wears RL. Assessing the impact of computerization on work practice: information technology in emergency departments. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2007; 51 (04) 377381
- 18 Wears RL, Perry SJ. Status boards in accident & emergency departments: support for shared cognition. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 2007; 8 (05) 371-380
- 19 Xiao Y, Schenkel S, Faraj S, Mackenzie CF, Moss J. What whiteboards in a trauma center operating suite can teach us about emergency department communication. Ann Emerg Med 2007; 50 (04) 387-395
- 20 Karahoca A, Bayraktar E, Tatoglu E, Karahoca D. Information system design for a hospital emergency department: a usability analysis of software prototypes. J Biomed Inform 2010; 43 (02) 224-232
- 21 Press A, McCullagh L, Khan S, Schachter A, Pardo S, McGinn T. Usability testing of a complex clinical decision support tool in the emergency department: lessons learned. JMIR Human Factors 2015; 2 (02) e14
- 22 Guarrera TK, McGeorge NM, Clark LN. , et al. Cognitive engineering design of an emergency department information system. In: Bisantz AM, Fairbanks RJ, Burns C. , eds. Cognitive Engineering for Better Health Care Systems. Boca Raton: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis;
- 23 McGeorge N, Hegde S, Berg RL. , et al. Assessment of innovative emergency department information displays in a clinical simulation center. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 2015; 9 (04) 329-346
- 24 Clark LN, Benda NC, Hegde S. , et al. Usability evaluation of an emergency department information system prototype designed using cognitive systems engineering techniques. Appl Ergon 2017; 60: 356-365
- 25 Benda NC, Hettinger AZ, Bisantz AM. , et al. Communication in the electronic age: an analysis of face-to-face physician-nurse communication in the emergency department. J Healthc Inform Res. 2017; 1 (02) 218-230
- 26 Kim TC, Bisantz AM, Benda NC. , et al. Assessing the usability of a prototype emergency medicine patient-centered electronic health record display. Proceedings of the 2018 Sixth IEEE International Conference on Healthcare Informatics (ICHI); 2018 Doi: 10.1109/ICHI.2018.00083
- 27 Roth E, Stilson M, Scott R. , et al. Work-centered design and evaluation of a C2 visualization aid. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet 2006; 50 (03) 255259
- 28 Hettinger AZ, Roth EM, Bisantz AM. Cognitive engineering and health informatics: applications and intersections. J Biomed Inform 2017; 67: 21-33
- 29 Sauro J. A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks, & Best Practices. Denver, CO: Measuring Usability LLC; 2011
- 30 Simpao AF, Ahumada LM, Larru Martinez B. , et al. Design and implementation of a visual analytics electronic antibiogram within an electronic health record system at a tertiary pediatric hospital. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 37-45
- 31 Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the System Usability Scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2008; 24 (06) 574-594
- 32 Kim MS, Shapiro JS, Genes N. , et al. A pilot study on usability analysis of emergency department information system by nurses. Appl Clin Inform 2012; 3 (01) 135-153
- 33 Hester G, Lang T, Madsen L, Tambyraja R, Zenker P. Timely data for targeted quality improvement interventions: use of a visual analytics dashboard for bronchiolitis. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (01) 168-174
- 34 Lin YL, Guerguerian AM, Tomasi J, Laussen P, Trbovich P. “Usability of data integration and visualization software for multidisciplinary pediatric intensive care: a human factors approach to assessing technology”. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2017; 17 (01) 122
- 35 Faulkner L. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 2003; 35 (03) 379-383