Natalie J Corrao1, Alan G Robinson, Michael A Swiernik, Arash Naeim. 1. Office of the Dean; Department of Medicine; and Division of Hematology-Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: An oncology electronic health record (EHR) was implemented without prior usability testing. Before expanding the system to new clinics, this study was initiated to examine the role of usability testing in the evaluation of an EHR product and whether novice users could identify issues with usability that resonated with more experienced users of the system. In addition, our study evaluated whether usability issues with an already implemented system affect efficiency and satisfaction of users. METHODS: A general usability guide was developed by a group of five informaticists. Using this guide, four novice users evaluated an EHR product and identified issues. A panel of five experts reviewed the identified issues to determine agreement with and applicability to the already implemented system. A survey of 42 experienced users of the previously implemented EHR was also performed to assess efficiency and general satisfaction. RESULTS: The novice users identified 110 usability issues. Our expert panel agreed with 90% of the issues and recommendations for correction identified by the novice users. Our survey had a 54% response rate. The majority of the experienced users of the previously implemented system, which did not benefit from upfront usability testing, had a high degree of dissatisfaction with efficiency and general functionality but higher overall satisfaction than expected. CONCLUSION: In addition to reviewing features and content of an EHR system, usability testing could improve the chances that the EHR design is integrated with existing workflow and business processes in a clear and efficient way.
PURPOSE: An oncology electronic health record (EHR) was implemented without prior usability testing. Before expanding the system to new clinics, this study was initiated to examine the role of usability testing in the evaluation of an EHR product and whether novice users could identify issues with usability that resonated with more experienced users of the system. In addition, our study evaluated whether usability issues with an already implemented system affect efficiency and satisfaction of users. METHODS: A general usability guide was developed by a group of five informaticists. Using this guide, four novice users evaluated an EHR product and identified issues. A panel of five experts reviewed the identified issues to determine agreement with and applicability to the already implemented system. A survey of 42 experienced users of the previously implemented EHR was also performed to assess efficiency and general satisfaction. RESULTS: The novice users identified 110 usability issues. Our expert panel agreed with 90% of the issues and recommendations for correction identified by the novice users. Our survey had a 54% response rate. The majority of the experienced users of the previously implemented system, which did not benefit from upfront usability testing, had a high degree of dissatisfaction with efficiency and general functionality but higher overall satisfaction than expected. CONCLUSION: In addition to reviewing features and content of an EHR system, usability testing could improve the chances that the EHR design is integrated with existing workflow and business processes in a clear and efficient way.
Authors: Travis K Redd; Julie W Doberne; Daniel Lattin; Thomas R Yackel; Carl O Eriksson; Vishnu Mohan; Jeffrey A Gold; Joan S Ash; Michael F Chiang Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2015-11-05
Authors: Hilde Krogstad; Stine Marie Sundt-Hansen; Marianne Jensen Hjermstad; Liv Ågot Hågensen; Stein Kaasa; Jon Håvard Loge; Sunil X Raj; Aslak Steinsbekk; Kari Sand Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Dio Kavalieratos; Janet Bull; Charles S Stinson; Jonathan Nicolla; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer Jeon; Rachel E White; Richard G Hunt; Andrea L Cassano-Piché; Anthony C Easty Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-12-20 Impact factor: 3.840