Julian Brunner1, Emmeline Chuang2, Caroline Goldzweig3, Cindy L Cain2, Catherine Sugar4, Elizabeth M Yano5. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA; VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (Sepulveda Campus),16111 Plummer Street, Mailcode 152, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA. Electronic address: julianbrunner@ucla.edu. 2. Department of Health Policy and Management, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. 3. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,8700 Beverly Blvd., Suite 2211, Los Angeles, CA 90048, USA, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles Fielding School of Public Health, 650 Charles Young Dr. S., Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA. 5. VA HSR&D Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation, and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (Sepulveda Campus),16111 Plummer Street, Mailcode 152, Sepulveda, CA 91343, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A growing literature has demonstrated the ability of user-centered design to make clinical decision support systems more effective and easier to use. However, studies of user-centered design have rarely examined more than a handful of sites at a time, and have frequently neglected the implementation climate and organizational resources that influence clinical decision support. The inclusion of such factors was identified by a systematic review as "the most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations." OBJECTIVES: (1) Identify the prevalence of four user-centered design practices at United States Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics and assess the perceived utility of clinical decision support at those clinics; (2) Evaluate the association between those user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support. METHODS: We analyzed clinic-level survey data collected in 2006-2007 from 170 VA primary care clinics. We examined four user-centered design practices: 1) pilot testing, 2) provider satisfaction assessment, 3) formal usability assessment, and 4) analysis of impact on performance improvement. We used a regression model to evaluate the association between user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support, while accounting for other important factors at those clinics, including implementation climate, available resources, and structural characteristics. We also examined associations separately at community-based clinics and at hospital-based clinics. RESULTS: User-centered design practices for clinical decision support varied across clinics: 74% conducted pilot testing, 62% conducted provider satisfaction assessment, 36% conducted a formal usability assessment, and 79% conducted an analysis of impact on performance improvement. Overall perceived utility of clinical decision support was high, with a mean rating of 4.17 (±.67) out of 5 on a composite measure. "Analysis of impact on performance improvement" was the only user-centered design practice significantly associated with perceived utility of clinical decision support, b=.47 (p<.001). This association was present in hospital-based clinics, b=.34 (p<.05), but was stronger at community-based clinics, b=.61 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are highly supportive of the practice of analyzing the impact of clinical decision support on performance metrics. This was the most common user-centered design practice in our study, and was the practice associated with higher perceived utility of clinical decision support. This practice may be particularly helpful at community-based clinics, which are typically less connected to VA medical center resources. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: A growing literature has demonstrated the ability of user-centered design to make clinical decision support systems more effective and easier to use. However, studies of user-centered design have rarely examined more than a handful of sites at a time, and have frequently neglected the implementation climate and organizational resources that influence clinical decision support. The inclusion of such factors was identified by a systematic review as "the most important improvement that can be made in health IT evaluations." OBJECTIVES: (1) Identify the prevalence of four user-centered design practices at United States Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics and assess the perceived utility of clinical decision support at those clinics; (2) Evaluate the association between those user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support. METHODS: We analyzed clinic-level survey data collected in 2006-2007 from 170 VA primary care clinics. We examined four user-centered design practices: 1) pilot testing, 2) provider satisfaction assessment, 3) formal usability assessment, and 4) analysis of impact on performance improvement. We used a regression model to evaluate the association between user-centered design practices and the perceived utility of clinical decision support, while accounting for other important factors at those clinics, including implementation climate, available resources, and structural characteristics. We also examined associations separately at community-based clinics and at hospital-based clinics. RESULTS: User-centered design practices for clinical decision support varied across clinics: 74% conducted pilot testing, 62% conducted provider satisfaction assessment, 36% conducted a formal usability assessment, and 79% conducted an analysis of impact on performance improvement. Overall perceived utility of clinical decision support was high, with a mean rating of 4.17 (±.67) out of 5 on a composite measure. "Analysis of impact on performance improvement" was the only user-centered design practice significantly associated with perceived utility of clinical decision support, b=.47 (p<.001). This association was present in hospital-based clinics, b=.34 (p<.05), but was stronger at community-based clinics, b=.61 (p<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings are highly supportive of the practice of analyzing the impact of clinical decision support on performance metrics. This was the most common user-centered design practice in our study, and was the practice associated with higher perceived utility of clinical decision support. This practice may be particularly helpful at community-based clinics, which are typically less connected to VA medical center resources. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Entities:
Keywords:
Clinical decision support; Human factors; Usability; User-centered design
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: Emily S Patterson; Bradley N Doebbeling; Constance H Fung; Laura Militello; Shilo Anders; Steven M Asch Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2004-12-15 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Blackford Middleton; Meryl Bloomrosen; Mark A Dente; Bill Hashmat; Ross Koppel; J Marc Overhage; Thomas H Payne; S Trent Rosenbloom; Charlotte Weaver; Jiajie Zhang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael C Brunner; Scott E Sheehan; Eric M Yanke; Dean F Sittig; Nasia Safdar; Barbara Hill; Kenneth S Lee; John F Orwin; David J Vanness; Christopher J Hildebrand; Michael A Bruno; Timothy J Erickson; Ryan Zea; D Paul Moberg Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Amye J Tevaarwerk; Jennifer R Klemp; Gijsberta J van Londen; Bradford W Hesse; Mary E Sesto Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-09-12 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Brian C Stagg; Joshua D Stein; Felipe A Medeiros; Barbara Wirostko; Alan Crandall; M Elizabeth Hartnett; Mollie Cummins; Alan Morris; Rachel Hess; Kensaku Kawamoto Journal: Ophthalmol Glaucoma Date: 2020-08-15
Authors: Wolfgang Rödle; Stefan Wimmer; Julia Zahn; Hans-Ulrich Prokosch; Bernward Hinkes; Antje Neubert; Wolfgang Rascher; Stefan Kraus; Dennis Toddenroth; Brita Sedlmayr Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Khoa A Nguyen; Himalaya Patel; David A Haggstrom; Alan J Zillich; Thomas F Imperiale; Alissa L Russ Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-10-17 Impact factor: 2.796