Khara M Sauro1, Jayna Holroyd-Leduc1, Samuel Wiebe1, Hude Quan1, Lara Cooke1, J Helen Cross1, Gary W Mathern1, Heather Armson1, Julie Stromer1, Nathalie Jetté1. 1. Department of Clinical Neurosciences & Hotchkiss Brain Institute (KMS, SW, LC, NJ), Department of Community Health Sciences & O'Brien Institute for Public Health (KMS, JH-L, SW, HQ, NJ), Department of Medicine (JH-L), Department of Family Medicine (HA), and Ward of the 21st Century (JS), Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada; UCL Institute of Child Health & Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children (JHC), London, UK; and Department of Neurosurgery, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, University of California (GWM), Los Angeles.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that surgery be considered in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, yet delays to epilepsy surgery still exist. A Web-based, evidence-informed clinical decision tool (www.toolsforepilepsy.com) was developed to help physicians determine which patients are appropriate for an epilepsy surgery evaluation. We evaluated the usability and feasibility of the tool with the intended end users in order to improve implementation into practice. METHODS: Usability testing was conducted with relevant end users. After the tool was modified based on usability results, another group of end users trialed the tool in their clinical practice. This latter group of end users then participated in focus groups and semi-structured interviews to address barriers and facilitators to tool implementation. Finally, a stakeholder meeting was held with domain experts and end users to discuss further changes to the tool and implementation strategies. RESULTS: Six overall themes were identified through usability testing, and an additional 11 themes were identified through the focus groups and interviews. The tool was modified based on these findings, which were then presented at the stakeholder meeting of experts and end users for further refinement. The findings were also used to guide discussions of potential implementation strategies at the meeting. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance on how to improve the usability of clinical decision tools by engaging end users, experts, and other key stakeholders. The modifications to the tool should facilitate its implementation in clinical practice and ultimately enhance the quality of care persons with epilepsy receive.
BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend that surgery be considered in patients with drug-resistant epilepsy, yet delays to epilepsy surgery still exist. A Web-based, evidence-informed clinical decision tool (www.toolsforepilepsy.com) was developed to help physicians determine which patients are appropriate for an epilepsy surgery evaluation. We evaluated the usability and feasibility of the tool with the intended end users in order to improve implementation into practice. METHODS: Usability testing was conducted with relevant end users. After the tool was modified based on usability results, another group of end users trialed the tool in their clinical practice. This latter group of end users then participated in focus groups and semi-structured interviews to address barriers and facilitators to tool implementation. Finally, a stakeholder meeting was held with domain experts and end users to discuss further changes to the tool and implementation strategies. RESULTS: Six overall themes were identified through usability testing, and an additional 11 themes were identified through the focus groups and interviews. The tool was modified based on these findings, which were then presented at the stakeholder meeting of experts and end users for further refinement. The findings were also used to guide discussions of potential implementation strategies at the meeting. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance on how to improve the usability of clinical decision tools by engaging end users, experts, and other key stakeholders. The modifications to the tool should facilitate its implementation in clinical practice and ultimately enhance the quality of care persons with epilepsy receive.
Authors: Aylin Y Reid; Amy Metcalfe; Scott B Patten; Samuel Wiebe; Sophie Macrodimitris; Nathalie Jetté Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: G D Cascino; M R Trenerry; E L So; F W Sharbrough; C Shin; T D Lagerlund; M L Zupanc; C R Jack Journal: Epilepsia Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Jerome Engel; Samuel Wiebe; Jacqueline French; Michael Sperling; Peter Williamson; Dennis Spencer; Robert Gumnit; Catherine Zahn; Edward Westbrook; Bruce Enos Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 5.864
Authors: Lara Jehi; Nathalie Jette; Churl-Su Kwon; Colin B Josephson; Jorge G Burneo; Fernando Cendes; Michael R Sperling; Sallie Baxendale; Robyn M Busch; Chahnez Charfi Triki; J Helen Cross; Dana Ekstein; Dario J Englot; Guoming Luan; Andre Palmini; Loreto Rios; Xiongfei Wang; Karl Roessler; Bertil Rydenhag; Georgia Ramantani; Stephan Schuele; Jo M Wilmshurst; Sarah Wilson; Samuel Wiebe Journal: Epilepsia Date: 2022-07-17 Impact factor: 6.740