INTRODUCTION: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to reduce adverse medical events, but improper design can introduce new forms of error. CDSS pertaining to community acquired pneumonia and neutropenic fever were studied to determine whether usability of the graphical user interface might contribute to potential adverse medical events. METHODS: Automated screen capture of 4 CDSS being used by volunteer emergency physicians was analyzed using structured methods. RESULTS: 422 events were recorded over 56 sessions. In total, 169 negative comments, 55 positive comments, 130 neutral comments, 21 application events, 34 problems, 6 slips, and 5 mistakes were identified. Three mistakes could have had life-threatening consequences. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of CDSS will be of utmost importance in the future with increasing use of electronic health records. Usability engineering principles can identify interface problems that may lead to potential medical adverse events, and should be incorporated early in the software design phase.
INTRODUCTION: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to reduce adverse medical events, but improper design can introduce new forms of error. CDSS pertaining to community acquired pneumonia and neutropenic fever were studied to determine whether usability of the graphical user interface might contribute to potential adverse medical events. METHODS: Automated screen capture of 4 CDSS being used by volunteer emergency physicians was analyzed using structured methods. RESULTS: 422 events were recorded over 56 sessions. In total, 169 negative comments, 55 positive comments, 130 neutral comments, 21 application events, 34 problems, 6 slips, and 5 mistakes were identified. Three mistakes could have had life-threatening consequences. CONCLUSION: Evaluation of CDSS will be of utmost importance in the future with increasing use of electronic health records. Usability engineering principles can identify interface problems that may lead to potential medical adverse events, and should be incorporated early in the software design phase.
Authors: Andre W Kushniruk; Marc M Triola; Elizabeth M Borycki; Ben Stein; Joseph L Kannry Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2005-04-08 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: M J Fine; T E Auble; D M Yealy; B H Hanusa; L A Weissfeld; D E Singer; C M Coley; T J Marrie; W N Kapoor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-01-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Safiya Richardson; Rebecca Mishuris; Alexander O'Connell; David Feldstein; Rachel Hess; Paul Smith; Lauren McCullagh; Thomas McGinn; Devin Mann Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2017-06-23 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Barbara E Jones; Dave S Collingridge; Caroline G Vines; Herman Post; John Holmen; Todd L Allen; Peter Haug; Charlene R Weir; Nathan C Dean Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Monika Kastner; Anna Sawka; Kevin Thorpe; Mark Chignel; Christine Marquez; David Newton; Sharon E Straus Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-07-22 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Teresa Murray-Torres; Aparna Casarella; Mara Bollini; Frances Wallace; Michael S Avidan; Mary C Politi Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2019-04-23
Authors: Plinio P Morita; Peter B Weinstein; Christopher J Flewwelling; Carleene A Bañez; Tabitha A Chiu; Mario Iannuzzi; Aastha H Patel; Ashleigh P Shier; Joseph A Cafazzo Journal: Crit Care Date: 2016-08-20 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Raj Padwal; Finlay Aleck McAlister; Peter William Wood; Pierre Boulanger; Miriam Fradette; Scott Klarenbach; Alun L Edwards; Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Kannayiram Alagiakrishnan; Doreen Rabi; Sumit Ranjan Majumdar Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2016-06-24