Catherine Plaisant1, Johnny Wu2, A Zach Hettinger3, Seth Powsner4, Ben Shneiderman2. 1. Human-Computer Interaction Lab, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA plaisant@cs.umd.edu. 2. Human-Computer Interaction Lab and Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. 3. National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, Medstar Institute for Innovation, Washington, DC, USA. 4. Department of Psychiatry & Emergency Medicine, Yale University, and Yale Center for Medical Informatics, New Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate time, number of interface actions, and accuracy on medication reconciliation tasks using a novel user interface (Twinlist, which lays out the medications in five columns based on similarity and uses animation to introduce the grouping - www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/sharp/twinlist) compared to a Control interface (where medications are presented side by side in two columns). A secondary objective was to assess participant agreement with statements regarding clarity and utility and to elicit comparisons. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 1 × 2 within-subjects experimental design was used with interface (Twinlist or Control) as an independent variable; time, number of clicks, scrolls, and errors were used as dependent variables. Participants were practicing medical providers with experience performing medication reconciliation but no experience with Twinlist. They reconciled two cases in each interface (in a counterbalanced order), then provided feedback on the design of the interface. RESULTS: Twenty medical providers participated in the study for a total of 80 trials. The trials using Twinlist were statistically significantly faster (18%), with fewer clicks (40%) and scrolls (60%). Serious errors were noted 12 and 31 times in Twinlist and Control trials, respectively. DISCUSSION: Trials using Twinlist were faster and more accurate. Subjectively, participants rated Twinlist more favorably than Control. They valued the novel layout of the drugs, but indicated that the included animation would be valuable for novices, but not necessarily for advanced users. Additional feedback from participants provides guidance for further development and clinical implementations. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive support of medication reconciliation through interface design can significantly improve performance and safety.
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to evaluate time, number of interface actions, and accuracy on medication reconciliation tasks using a novel user interface (Twinlist, which lays out the medications in five columns based on similarity and uses animation to introduce the grouping - www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/sharp/twinlist) compared to a Control interface (where medications are presented side by side in two columns). A secondary objective was to assess participant agreement with statements regarding clarity and utility and to elicit comparisons. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A 1 × 2 within-subjects experimental design was used with interface (Twinlist or Control) as an independent variable; time, number of clicks, scrolls, and errors were used as dependent variables. Participants were practicing medical providers with experience performing medication reconciliation but no experience with Twinlist. They reconciled two cases in each interface (in a counterbalanced order), then provided feedback on the design of the interface. RESULTS: Twenty medical providers participated in the study for a total of 80 trials. The trials using Twinlist were statistically significantly faster (18%), with fewer clicks (40%) and scrolls (60%). Serious errors were noted 12 and 31 times in Twinlist and Control trials, respectively. DISCUSSION: Trials using Twinlist were faster and more accurate. Subjectively, participants rated Twinlist more favorably than Control. They valued the novel layout of the drugs, but indicated that the included animation would be valuable for novices, but not necessarily for advanced users. Additional feedback from participants provides guidance for further development and clinical implementations. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive support of medication reconciliation through interface design can significantly improve performance and safety.
Authors: Amanda S Mixon; Sunil Kripalani; Jason Stein; Tosha B Wetterneck; Peter Kaboli; Stephanie Mueller; Elisabeth Burdick; Nyryan V Nolido; Stephanie Labonville; Jacquelyn A Minahan; E John Orav; Jenna Goldstein; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Benjamin J Duncan; Lu Zheng; Stephanie K Furniss; Andrew J Solomon; Brad N Doebbeling; Grando Grando; Matthew M Burton; Karl A Poterack; Timothy A Miksch; Richard A Helmers; David R Kaufman Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Theodore B Wright; Kathleen Adams; Victoria L Church; Mimi Ferraro; Scott Ragland; Anthony Sayers; Stephanie Tallett; Travis Lovejoy; Joan Ash; Patricia J Holahan; Blake J Lesselroth Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-04-16
Authors: Danny T Y Wu; Scott Vennemeyer; Kelly Brown; Jason Revalee; Paul Murdock; Sarah Salomone; Ashton France; Katherine Clarke-Myers; Samuel P Hanke Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Blake J Lesselroth; Kathleen Adams; Victoria L Church; Stephanie Tallett; Yelizaveta Russ; Jack Wiedrick; Christopher Forsberg; David A Dorr Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 2.342