OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between (1) task demands and workload, (2) task demands and performance, and (3) workload and performance, all during physician-computer interactions in a simulated environment. METHODS: Two experiments were performed in 2 different electronic medical record (EMR) environments: WebCIS (n = 12) and Epic (n = 17). Each participant was instructed to complete a set of prespecified tasks on 3 routine clinical EMR-based scenarios: urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia (PN), and heart failure (HF). Task demands were quantified using behavioral responses (click and time analysis). At the end of each scenario, subjective workload was measured using the NASA-Task-Load Index (NASA-TLX). Physiological workload was measured using pupillary dilation and electroencephalography (EEG) data collected throughout the scenarios. Performance was quantified based on the maximum severity of omission errors. RESULTS: Data analysis indicated that the PN and HF scenarios were significantly more demanding than the UTI scenario for participants using WebCIS (P < .01), and that the PN scenario was significantly more demanding than the UTI and HF scenarios for participants using Epic (P < .01). In both experiments, the regression analysis indicated a significant relationship only between task demands and performance (P < .01). DISCUSSION: Results suggest that task demands as experienced by participants are related to participants' performance. Future work may support the notion that task demands could be used as a quality metric that is likely representative of performance, and perhaps patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The present study is a reasonable next step in a systematic assessment of how task demands and workload are related to performance in EMR-evolving environments.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between (1) task demands and workload, (2) task demands and performance, and (3) workload and performance, all during physician-computer interactions in a simulated environment. METHODS: Two experiments were performed in 2 different electronic medical record (EMR) environments: WebCIS (n = 12) and Epic (n = 17). Each participant was instructed to complete a set of prespecified tasks on 3 routine clinical EMR-based scenarios: urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia (PN), and heart failure (HF). Task demands were quantified using behavioral responses (click and time analysis). At the end of each scenario, subjective workload was measured using the NASA-Task-Load Index (NASA-TLX). Physiological workload was measured using pupillary dilation and electroencephalography (EEG) data collected throughout the scenarios. Performance was quantified based on the maximum severity of omission errors. RESULTS: Data analysis indicated that the PN and HF scenarios were significantly more demanding than the UTI scenario for participants using WebCIS (P < .01), and that the PN scenario was significantly more demanding than the UTI and HF scenarios for participants using Epic (P < .01). In both experiments, the regression analysis indicated a significant relationship only between task demands and performance (P < .01). DISCUSSION: Results suggest that task demands as experienced by participants are related to participants' performance. Future work may support the notion that task demands could be used as a quality metric that is likely representative of performance, and perhaps patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The present study is a reasonable next step in a systematic assessment of how task demands and workload are related to performance in EMR-evolving environments.
Authors: Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yong Y Han; Joseph A Carcillo; Shekhar T Venkataraman; Robert S B Clark; R Scott Watson; Trung C Nguyen; Hülya Bayir; Richard A Orr Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Yuliya Y Yurko; Mark W Scerbo; Ajita S Prabhu; Christina E Acker; Dimitrios Stefanidis Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Pieter van den Hombergh; Beat Künzi; Glyn Elwyn; Jan van Doremalen; Reinier Akkermans; Richard Grol; Michel Wensing Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-07-15 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Saif Khairat; Cameron Coleman; Thomas Newlin; Victoria Rand; Paige Ottmar; Thomas Bice; Shannon S Carson Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Joseph K Nuamah; Prithima R Mosaly; Robert Adams; Kathik Adapa; Bhisham S Chera; Lawrence B Marks; Lukasz M Mazur Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-09-28
Authors: Lukasz M Mazur; Lawrence B Marks; Ron McLeod; Waldemar Karwowski; Prithima Mosaly; Gregg Tracton; Robert D Adams; Lesley Hoyle; Shiva Das; Bhishamjit Chera Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-02-07
Authors: Olivier Garot; Julian Rössler; Juliane Pfarr; Michael T Ganter; Donat R Spahn; Christoph B Nöthiger; David W Tscholl Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: David Werner Tscholl; Julian Rössler; Sadiq Said; Alexander Kaserer; Donat Rudolf Spahn; Christoph Beat Nöthiger Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 3.576