INTRODUCTION: Anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) have been developed by multiple vendors and are deployed in thousands of operating rooms around the world, yet not much is known about measuring and improving AIMS usability. We developed a methodology for evaluating AIMS usability in a low-fidelity simulated clinical environment and used it to compare an existing user interface with a revised version. We hypothesized that the revised user interface would be more useable. METHODS: In a low-fidelity simulated clinical environment, twenty anesthesia providers documented essential anesthetic information for the start of the case using both an existing and a revised user interface. Participants had not used the revised user interface previously and completed a brief training exercise prior to the study task. All participants completed a workload assessment and a satisfaction survey. All sessions were recorded. Multiple usability metrics were measured. The primary outcome was documentation accuracy. Secondary outcomes were perceived workload, number of documentation steps, number of user interactions, and documentation time. The interfaces were compared and design problems were identified by analyzing recorded sessions and survey results. RESULTS: Use of the revised user interface was shown to improve documentation accuracy from 85.1% to 92.4%, a difference of 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference 1.8 to 12.7). The revised user interface decreased the number of user interactions by 6.5 for intravenous documentation (95% CI 2.9 to 10.1) and by 16.1 for airway documentation (95% CI 11.1 to 21.1). The revised user interface required 3.8 fewer documentation steps (95% CI 2.3 to 5.4). Airway documentation time was reduced by 30.5 seconds with the revised workflow (95% CI 8.5 to 52.4). There were no significant time differences noted in intravenous documentation or in total task time. No difference in perceived workload was found between the user interfaces. Two user interface design problems were identified in the revised user interface. DISCUSSION: The usability of anesthesia information management systems can be evaluated using a low-fidelity simulated clinical environment. User testing of the revised user interface showed improvement in some usability metrics and highlighted areas for further revision. Vendors of AIMS and those who use them should consider adopting methods to evaluate and improve AIMS usability.
INTRODUCTION: Anesthesia information management systems (AIMS) have been developed by multiple vendors and are deployed in thousands of operating rooms around the world, yet not much is known about measuring and improving AIMS usability. We developed a methodology for evaluating AIMS usability in a low-fidelity simulated clinical environment and used it to compare an existing user interface with a revised version. We hypothesized that the revised user interface would be more useable. METHODS: In a low-fidelity simulated clinical environment, twenty anesthesia providers documented essential anesthetic information for the start of the case using both an existing and a revised user interface. Participants had not used the revised user interface previously and completed a brief training exercise prior to the study task. All participants completed a workload assessment and a satisfaction survey. All sessions were recorded. Multiple usability metrics were measured. The primary outcome was documentation accuracy. Secondary outcomes were perceived workload, number of documentation steps, number of user interactions, and documentation time. The interfaces were compared and design problems were identified by analyzing recorded sessions and survey results. RESULTS: Use of the revised user interface was shown to improve documentation accuracy from 85.1% to 92.4%, a difference of 7.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] for the difference 1.8 to 12.7). The revised user interface decreased the number of user interactions by 6.5 for intravenous documentation (95% CI 2.9 to 10.1) and by 16.1 for airway documentation (95% CI 11.1 to 21.1). The revised user interface required 3.8 fewer documentation steps (95% CI 2.3 to 5.4). Airway documentation time was reduced by 30.5 seconds with the revised workflow (95% CI 8.5 to 52.4). There were no significant time differences noted in intravenous documentation or in total task time. No difference in perceived workload was found between the user interfaces. Two user interface design problems were identified in the revised user interface. DISCUSSION: The usability of anesthesia information management systems can be evaluated using a low-fidelity simulated clinical environment. User testing of the revised user interface showed improvement in some usability metrics and highlighted areas for further revision. Vendors of AIMS and those who use them should consider adopting methods to evaluate and improve AIMS usability.