CC BY 4.0 · ACI Open 2020; 04(02): e149-e156
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719060
Original Article

Development and Usability Evaluation of GreyMatters: A Memory Clinic Information System

Archana Tapuria
1  School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Matt Evans
2  Berkshire Healthcare National Health Service Foundation Trust, Bracknell, United Kingdom
,
Vasa Curcin
1  School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Tony Austin
3  CHIME, University College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Nathan Lea
3  CHIME, University College London, London, United Kingdom
,
Dipak Kalra
1  School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Objective This paper presents the development process of GreyMatters, a memory clinic system, outlining the conceptual, practical, technical, and ethical aspects, and focuses on the usability evaluation of the system. There was a need for a system to be developed for the memory clinics of Berkshire Healthcare National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust (BHFT) to aid the clinical and administrative processes of assessing, diagnosing, managing, and treating patients with cognitive disorders and mental health problems.

Methods The methodology for development of the information system involved phases of requirements gathering, modeling, and prototype creation, and “bench testing” the prototype with experts. The standard Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) recommended approach for the specifications of software requirements was adopted. An electronic health record (EHR) standard (EN13606) was used, and clinical modeling was done through archetypes and the project complied with data protection and privacy legislation. Usability evaluation of GreyMatters was done using the IBM questionnaires.

Results Though the initial development was complex, the requirements, methodology, and standards adopted made the construction, deployment, adoption, and population of a memory clinic and research database feasible. The electronic patient data including the assessment scales and scores provide a rich source of objective data for audits and research. In the usability evaluation of GreyMatters, overall responses to the Computer System Usability Questionnaire and After-Scenario Questionnaire demonstrated mild-to-moderate satisfaction with the overall system and with individual tasks. The results support that the system is an acceptable tool for clinical, administrative, business, and research use and forms a useful part of the wider information architecture. The implementation and sustainability issues and the lessons learnt were noted.

Discussion The development of a system needs to take into account the existing data collection methods and other information systems that will be used alongside. Use of graphical development tools to communicate requirements, build interfaces, and prototype may improve the quality and efficiency of system development. Standardized data collection assists in the provision of reports for clinical, audit, and service development use to meet the requirements of commissioners and to allow the easier identification of potential research participants. It is possible that in the usability evaluation, the satisfaction scores are overall lower due to the extra complication of using this system in addition to the Trust's main EHR. The small number of users is a limitation.

Conclusion The establishment of requirements and methodology, addressing issues of data security and confidentiality, future data compatibility, and interoperability and medicolegal aspects, such as access controls and audit trails, led to a robust and useful system. The system was modeled around health record standards that are based on long established research on EHR standards and archetypes which differentiates GreyMatters from simple web-based capture forms that were built in house by the Trust. Its strength is that it provides flexibility to record clinical information that the existing Trust systems can't. The evaluation supports that the system is an acceptable tool for clinical, administrative, and research use. Some aspects of the system like prescribing module do need further work.



Publication History

Received: 14 April 2020

Accepted: 18 September 2020

Publication Date:
09 December 2020 (online)

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany