OBJECTIVES: Employing new health information technologies while concurrently providing quality patient care and reducing risk is a major challenge in all health care sectors. In this study, we investigated the usability gaps in the Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) as ten nurses differentiated by two experience levels, namely six expert nurses and four novice nurses, completed two lists of nine scenario-based tasks. METHODS: Standard usability tests using video analysis, including four sets of performance measures, a task completion survey, the system usability scale (SUS), and sub-task analysis were conducted in order to analyze usability gaps between the two nurse groups. RESULTS: A varying degree of usability gaps were observed between the expert and novice nurse groups, as novice nurses completed the tasks both less efficiently, and expressed less satisfaction with the EDIS. The most interesting finding in this study was the result of 'percent task success rate,' the clearest performance measure, with no substantial difference observed between the two nurse groups. Geometric mean values between expert and novice nurse groups for this measure were 60% vs. 62% in scenario 1 and 66% vs. 55% in scenario 2 respectively, while there were some marginal to substantial gaps observed in other performance measures. In addition to performance measures and the SUS, sub-task analysis highlighted navigation pattern differences between users, regardless of experience level. CONCLUSION: This study will serve as a baseline study for a future comparative usability evaluation of EDIS in other institutions with similar clinical settings.
OBJECTIVES: Employing new health information technologies while concurrently providing quality patient care and reducing risk is a major challenge in all health care sectors. In this study, we investigated the usability gaps in the Emergency Department Information System (EDIS) as ten nurses differentiated by two experience levels, namely six expert nurses and four novice nurses, completed two lists of nine scenario-based tasks. METHODS: Standard usability tests using video analysis, including four sets of performance measures, a task completion survey, the system usability scale (SUS), and sub-task analysis were conducted in order to analyze usability gaps between the two nurse groups. RESULTS: A varying degree of usability gaps were observed between the expert and novice nurse groups, as novice nurses completed the tasks both less efficiently, and expressed less satisfaction with the EDIS. The most interesting finding in this study was the result of 'percent task success rate,' the clearest performance measure, with no substantial difference observed between the two nurse groups. Geometric mean values between expert and novice nurse groups for this measure were 60% vs. 62% in scenario 1 and 66% vs. 55% in scenario 2 respectively, while there were some marginal to substantial gaps observed in other performance measures. In addition to performance measures and the SUS, sub-task analysis highlighted navigation pattern differences between users, regardless of experience level. CONCLUSION: This study will serve as a baseline study for a future comparative usability evaluation of EDIS in other institutions with similar clinical settings.
Entities:
Keywords:
EDIS; Electronic health records; emergency department information system; usability engineering
Authors: Jason S Shapiro; Kevin M Baumlin; Neal Chawla; Nicholas Genes; James Godbold; Fen Ye; Lynne D Richardson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Kevin M Baumlin; Jason S Shapiro; Corey Weiner; Brett Gottlieb; Neal Chawla; Lynne D Richardson Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2010-04
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: Xiaomei Wang; Tracy C Kim; Sudeep Hegde; Daniel J Hoffman; Natalie C Benda; Ella S Franklin; David Lavergne; Shawna J Perry; Rollin J Fairbanks; A Zachary Hettinger; Emilie M Roth; Ann M Bisantz Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Edward R Melnick; Colin P West; Bidisha Nath; Pamela F Cipriano; Cheryl Peterson; Daniel V Satele; Tait Shanafelt; Liselotte N Dyrbye Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Corita R Grudzen; Abraham A Brody; Frank R Chung; Allison M Cuthel; Devin Mann; Jordan A McQuilkin; Ada L Rubin; Jordan Swartz; Audrey Tan; Keith S Goldfeld Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Benjamin Lucas; Peter Schladitz; Wiebke Schirrmeister; Gerald Pliske; Felix Walcher; Martin Kulla; Dominik Brammen Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2019-08-09 Impact factor: 2.655