Nicholas Genes1, Min Soon Kim2, Frederick L Thum1, Laura Rivera1, Rosemary Beato1, Carolyn Song1, Jared Soriano3, Joseph Kannry4, Kevin Baumlin1, Ula Hwang5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York, NY. 2. Department of Health Management & Informatics, University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, MO; Informatics Institute, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 3. Information Technology, Mount Sinai Health System , New York, NY. 4. Information Technology, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, NY; Division of General Internal Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY. 5. Brookdale Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY; Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, James J Peters VAMC, Bronx, NY.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at risk for inadequate emergency department (ED) pain care. Unrelieved acute pain is associated with poor outcomes. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) hold promise to improve patient care, but CDSS quality varies widely, particularly when usability evaluation is not employed. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an iterative usability and redesign process of a novel geriatric abdominal pain care CDSS. We hypothesized this process would result in the creation of more usable and favorable pain care interventions. METHODS: Thirteen emergency physicians familiar with the Electronic Health Record (EHR) in use at the study site were recruited. Over a 10-week period, 17 1-hour usability test sessions were conducted across 3 rounds of testing. Participants were given 3 patient scenarios and provided simulated clinical care using the EHR, while interacting with the CDSS interventions. Quantitative System Usability Scores (SUS), favorability scores and qualitative narrative feedback were collected for each session. Using a multi-step review process by an interdisciplinary team, positive and negative usability issues in effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction were considered, prioritized and incorporated in the iterative redesign process of the CDSS. Video analysis was used to determine the appropriateness of the CDS appearances during simulated clinical care. RESULTS: Over the 3 rounds of usability evaluations and subsequent redesign processes, mean SUS progressively improved from 74.8 to 81.2 to 88.9; mean favorability scores improved from 3.23 to 4.29 (1 worst, 5 best). Video analysis revealed that, in the course of the iterative redesign processes, rates of physicians' acknowledgment of CDS interventions increased, however most rates of desired actions by physicians (such as more frequent pain score updates) decreased. CONCLUSION: The iterative usability redesign process was instrumental in improving the usability of the CDSS; if implemented in practice, it could improve geriatric pain care. The usability evaluation process led to improved acknowledgement and favorability. Incorporating usability testing when designing CDSS interventions for studies may be effective to enhance clinician use.
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at risk for inadequate emergency department (ED) pain care. Unrelieved acute pain is associated with poor outcomes. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) hold promise to improve patient care, but CDSS quality varies widely, particularly when usability evaluation is not employed. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an iterative usability and redesign process of a novel geriatric abdominal pain care CDSS. We hypothesized this process would result in the creation of more usable and favorable pain care interventions. METHODS: Thirteen emergency physicians familiar with the Electronic Health Record (EHR) in use at the study site were recruited. Over a 10-week period, 17 1-hour usability test sessions were conducted across 3 rounds of testing. Participants were given 3 patient scenarios and provided simulated clinical care using the EHR, while interacting with the CDSS interventions. Quantitative System Usability Scores (SUS), favorability scores and qualitative narrative feedback were collected for each session. Using a multi-step review process by an interdisciplinary team, positive and negative usability issues in effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction were considered, prioritized and incorporated in the iterative redesign process of the CDSS. Video analysis was used to determine the appropriateness of the CDS appearances during simulated clinical care. RESULTS: Over the 3 rounds of usability evaluations and subsequent redesign processes, mean SUS progressively improved from 74.8 to 81.2 to 88.9; mean favorability scores improved from 3.23 to 4.29 (1 worst, 5 best). Video analysis revealed that, in the course of the iterative redesign processes, rates of physicians' acknowledgment of CDS interventions increased, however most rates of desired actions by physicians (such as more frequent pain score updates) decreased. CONCLUSION: The iterative usability redesign process was instrumental in improving the usability of the CDSS; if implemented in practice, it could improve geriatric pain care. The usability evaluation process led to improved acknowledgement and favorability. Incorporating usability testing when designing CDSS interventions for studies may be effective to enhance clinician use.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical decision support systems; acute pain; aged; computerized; decision support techniques; man-machine systems; medical record systems
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Kristen Reidel; Allen Huang; Laurel Taylor; Nancy Winslade; Gillian Bartlett; Roland Grad; André Jacques; Martin Dawes; Pierre Larochelle; Alain Pinsonneault Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Anurag Gupta; Ivan K Ip; Ali S Raja; James E Andruchow; Aaron Sodickson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: S Emani; D Y Ting; M Healey; S R Lipsitz; A S Karson; J S Einbinder; L Leinen; V Suric; D W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Michael J Ward; Adam B Landman; Karen Case; Jessica Berthelot; Randy L Pilgrim; Jesse M Pines Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2014-01-10 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Timothy F Platts-Mills; Denise A Esserman; D Levin Brown; Andrey V Bortsov; Philip D Sloane; Samuel A McLean Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Ula Hwang; Laura K Belland; Daniel A Handel; Kabir Yadav; Kennon Heard; Laura Rivera-Reyes; Amanda Eisenberg; Matthew J Noble; Sudha Mekala; Morgan Valley; Gary Winkel; Knox H Todd; Sean R Morrison Journal: Pain Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Kristen Miller; Muge Capan; Danielle Weldon; Yaman Noaiseh; Rebecca Kowalski; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.046