Michelle A Jahn1,2, Brian W Porter1, Himalaya Patel1, Alan J Zillich3, Steven R Simon4, Alissa L Russ1,3,5. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service, Center for Health Information and Communication, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 2. School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States. 3. Department of Pharmacy Practice, College of Pharmacy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, United States. 4. Geriatrics and Extended Care Service, VA Boston Healthcare System and Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, United States. 5. Regenstrief Institute Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Web-based patient portals feature secure messaging systems that enable health care providers and patients to communicate information. However, little is known about the usability of these systems for clinical document sharing. OBJECTIVE: This article evaluates the usability of a secure messaging system for providers and patients in terms of its ability to support sharing of electronic clinical documents. METHODS: We conducted usability testing with providers and patients in a human-computer interaction laboratory at a Midwestern U.S. hospital. Providers sent a medication list document to a fictitious patient via secure messaging. Separately, patients retrieved the clinical document from a secure message and returned it to a fictitious provider. We collected use errors, task completion, task time, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-nine individuals participated: 19 providers (6 physicians, 6 registered nurses, and 7 pharmacists) and 10 patients. Among providers, 11 (58%) attached and sent the clinical document via secure messaging without requiring assistance, in a median (range) of 4.5 (1.8-12.7) minutes. No patients completed tasks without moderator assistance. Patients accessed the secure messaging system within 3.6 (1.2-15.0) minutes; retrieved the clinical document within 0.8 (0.5-5.7) minutes; and sent the attached clinical document in 6.3 (1.5-18.1) minutes. Although median satisfaction ratings were high, with 5.8 for providers and 6.0 for patients (scale, 0-7), we identified 36 different use errors. Physicians and pharmacists requested additional features to support care coordination via health information technology, while nurses requested features to support efficiency for their tasks. CONCLUSION: This study examined the usability of clinical document sharing, a key feature of many secure messaging systems. Our results highlight similarities and differences between provider and patient end-user groups, which can inform secure messaging design to improve learnability and efficiency. The observations suggest recommendations for improving the technical aspects of secure messaging for clinical document sharing. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
BACKGROUND: Web-based patient portals feature secure messaging systems that enable health care providers and patients to communicate information. However, little is known about the usability of these systems for clinical document sharing. OBJECTIVE: This article evaluates the usability of a secure messaging system for providers and patients in terms of its ability to support sharing of electronic clinical documents. METHODS: We conducted usability testing with providers and patients in a human-computer interaction laboratory at a Midwestern U.S. hospital. Providers sent a medication list document to a fictitious patient via secure messaging. Separately, patients retrieved the clinical document from a secure message and returned it to a fictitious provider. We collected use errors, task completion, task time, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Twenty-nine individuals participated: 19 providers (6 physicians, 6 registered nurses, and 7 pharmacists) and 10 patients. Among providers, 11 (58%) attached and sent the clinical document via secure messaging without requiring assistance, in a median (range) of 4.5 (1.8-12.7) minutes. No patients completed tasks without moderator assistance. Patients accessed the secure messaging system within 3.6 (1.2-15.0) minutes; retrieved the clinical document within 0.8 (0.5-5.7) minutes; and sent the attached clinical document in 6.3 (1.5-18.1) minutes. Although median satisfaction ratings were high, with 5.8 for providers and 6.0 for patients (scale, 0-7), we identified 36 different use errors. Physicians and pharmacists requested additional features to support care coordination via health information technology, while nurses requested features to support efficiency for their tasks. CONCLUSION: This study examined the usability of clinical document sharing, a key feature of many secure messaging systems. Our results highlight similarities and differences between provider and patient end-user groups, which can inform secure messaging design to improve learnability and efficiency. The observations suggest recommendations for improving the technical aspects of secure messaging for clinical document sharing. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
Authors: Clara K Chow; Julie Redfern; Graham S Hillis; Jay Thakkar; Karla Santo; Maree L Hackett; Stephen Jan; Nicholas Graves; Laura de Keizer; Tony Barry; Severine Bompoint; Sandrine Stepien; Robyn Whittaker; Anthony Rodgers; Aravinda Thiagalingam Journal: JAMA Date: 2015 Sep 22-29 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alissa L Russ; Michelle A Jahn; Himalaya Patel; Brian W Porter; Khoa A Nguyen; Alan J Zillich; Amy Linsky; Steven R Simon Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Alissa L Russ; Michael Weiner; Scott A Russell; Darrell A Baker; W Jeffrey Fahner; Jason J Saleem Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2012-12
Authors: Beverly B Green; Andrea J Cook; James D Ralston; Paul A Fishman; Sheryl L Catz; James Carlson; David Carrell; Lynda Tyll; Eric B Larson; Robert S Thompson Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Leonie Heyworth; Allison M Paquin; Justice Clark; Victor Kamenker; Max Stewart; Tracey Martin; Steven R Simon Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chandra Y Osborn; Lindsay Satterwhite Mayberry; Kenneth A Wallston; Kevin B Johnson; Tom A Elasy Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jolie N Haun; Jason D Lind; Stephanie L Shimada; Tracey L Martin; Robert M Gosline; Nicole Antinori; Max Stewart; Steven R Simon Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Alisha P Chaudhry; Ronald A Hankey; Vinod C Kaggal; Huzefa Bhopalwala; David A Liedl; Paul W Wennberg; Thom W Rooke; Christopher G Scott; Magali P Disdier Moulder; Abby K Hendricks; Ana I Casanegra; Robert D McBane; Jane L Shellum; Iftikhar J Kullo; Rick A Nishimura; Rajeev Chaudhry; Adelaide M Arruda-Olson Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-11-28
Authors: Julianne E Brady; Amy M Linsky; Steven R Simon; Kate Yeksigian; Amy Rubin; Alan J Zillich; Alissa L Russ-Jara Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2022-08-03
Authors: Vincent Looten; Antoine Neuraz; Nicolas Garcelon; Anita Burgun; Gilles Chatellier; Bastien Rance Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-02-24 Impact factor: 5.428