Arif H Kamal1, Dio Kavalieratos2, Janet Bull3, Charles S Stinson4, Jonathan Nicolla5, Amy P Abernethy6. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA. Electronic address: arif.kamal@duke.edu. 2. Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburg School of Medicine, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Four Seasons, Flat Rock, North Carolina, USA. 4. Forsyth Medical Center Palliative Care Services, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 5. Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 6. Division of Medical Oncology and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Few resources exist to support collaborative quality monitoring in palliative care. These tools, if proven efficient through technology-enabled methods, may begin to routinize data collection on quality during usual palliative care delivery. Usability testing is a common approach to assess how easily and effectively users can interact with a newly developed tool. OBJECTIVES: We performed usability testing of the Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care (QDACT-PC) a novel, point-of-care quality monitoring tool for palliative care. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to assess community palliative care clinicians' evaluations of five domains of usability. These approaches included clinician surveys after recording mock patient data to assess satisfaction; review of entered data for accuracy and time to completion; and thematic review of "think aloud" protocols to determine issues, barriers, and advantages to the electronic system. RESULTS: We enrolled 14 palliative care clinicians for the study. Testing the electronic system vs. paper-based methods demonstrated similar error rates and time to completion. Overall, 68% of the participants believed that the electronic interface would not pose a moderate or major burden during usual clinical activities, and 65% thought it would improve the care they provided. Thematic analysis revealed significant issues with paper-based methods alongside training needs for future participants on using novel technologies that support the QDACT-PC. CONCLUSION: The QDACT-PC is a usable electronic system for quality monitoring in palliative care. Testing reveals equivalence with paper for data collection time, but with less burden overall for electronic methods across other domains of usability.
CONTEXT: Few resources exist to support collaborative quality monitoring in palliative care. These tools, if proven efficient through technology-enabled methods, may begin to routinize data collection on quality during usual palliative care delivery. Usability testing is a common approach to assess how easily and effectively users can interact with a newly developed tool. OBJECTIVES: We performed usability testing of the Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care (QDACT-PC) a novel, point-of-care quality monitoring tool for palliative care. METHODS: We used a mixed methods approach to assess community palliative care clinicians' evaluations of five domains of usability. These approaches included clinician surveys after recording mock patient data to assess satisfaction; review of entered data for accuracy and time to completion; and thematic review of "think aloud" protocols to determine issues, barriers, and advantages to the electronic system. RESULTS: We enrolled 14 palliative care clinicians for the study. Testing the electronic system vs. paper-based methods demonstrated similar error rates and time to completion. Overall, 68% of the participants believed that the electronic interface would not pose a moderate or major burden during usual clinical activities, and 65% thought it would improve the care they provided. Thematic analysis revealed significant issues with paper-based methods alongside training needs for future participants on using novel technologies that support the QDACT-PC. CONCLUSION: The QDACT-PC is a usable electronic system for quality monitoring in palliative care. Testing reveals equivalence with paper for data collection time, but with less burden overall for electronic methods across other domains of usability.
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Janet Bull; Charles Stinson; Debra Blue; Robert Smith; Rikki Hooper; Melanie Kelly; Judith Kinsella; Mark Philbrick; Agbessi Gblokpor; Jane L Wheeler; William Downey; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Jennifer N Stinson; Guy C Petroz; Gordon Tait; Brian M Feldman; David Streiner; Patrick J McGrath; Bonnie J Stevens Journal: Clin J Pain Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Margaret Gradison; Jennifer M Maguire; Donald Taylor; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Sydney M Dy; Jayashree Roy; Geoffrey E Ott; Michael McHale; Christine Kennedy; Jean S Kutner; Allen Tien Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Stephen Joel Coons; Chad J Gwaltney; Ron D Hays; J Jason Lundy; Jeff A Sloan; Dennis A Revicki; William R Lenderking; David Cella; Ethan Basch Journal: Value Health Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Seelwan Sathitratanacheewin; Helene Starks; Robert Y Lee; Erin K Kross; Lois Downey; James Sibley; William Lober; Elizabeth T Loggers; James A Fausto; Charlotta Lindvall; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-11-28 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Janet Bull; Dio Kavalieratos; Jonathan M Nicolla; Laura Roe; Martha Adams; Amy P Abernethy Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Thomas W LeBlanc; Christine S Ritchie; Fred Friedman; Janet Bull; Jean S Kutner; Kimberly S Johnson; Arif H Kamal Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Nicholas G Wysham; Michael J Hochman; Steven P Wolf; Christopher E Cox; Arif H Kamal Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-09-30 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Michael J Hochman; Yinxi Yu; Steven P Wolf; Greg P Samsa; Arif H Kamal; Thomas W LeBlanc Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Krista L Harrison; Janet H Bull; Sarah B Garrett; Lindsay Bonsignore; Tyler Bice; Laura C Hanson; Christine S Ritchie Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Arif H Kamal; Krista L Harrison; Marie Bakitas; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Lisa Zubkoff; Imatullah Akyar; Steven Z Pantilat; David L O'Riordan; Ashley R Bragg; Kara E Bischoff; Janet Bull Journal: Cancer Control Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.302
Authors: Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Janelle V Levesque; Martha Gerges; Tiffany Sandell; Anthony Arnold; Geoff P Delaney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 5.428