Dustin T Weiler1,2, Tyler Satterly1,2, Shakaib U Rehman3,4, Maury A Nussbaum5, Neale R Chumbler6, Gary M Fischer7, Jason J Saleem1,2. 1. Department of Industrial Engineering, J.B. Speed School of Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. 2. Center for Ergonomics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA. 3. Phoenix Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 4. University of Arizona College of Medicine, Phoenix, AZ, USA. 5. Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA. 6. Department of Public Health, College of Health and Human Services, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA. 7. Facilities Standards Service/Office of Facilities Planning, Office of Construction & Facilities Management, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C., USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Challenges persist regarding how to integrate computing effectively into the exam room, while maintaining patient-centered care. PURPOSE: Our objective was to evaluate a new exam room design with respect to the computing layout, which included a wall-mounted monitor for ease of (re)-positioning. METHODS: In a lab-based experiment, 28 providers used prototypes of the new and older "legacy" outpatient exam room layouts in a within-subject comparison using simulated patient encounters. We measured efficiency, errors, workload, patient-centeredness (proportion of time the provider was focused on the patient), amount of screen sharing with the patient, workflow integration, and provider situation awareness. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the exam room layouts for efficiency, errors, or time spent focused on the patient. However, when using the new layout providers spent 75% more time in screen sharing activities with the patient, had 31% lower workload, and gave higher ratings for situation awareness (14%) and workflow integration (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Providers seemed to be unwilling to compromise their focus on the patient when the computer was in a fixed position in the corner of the room and, as a result, experienced greater workload, lower situation awareness, and poorer workflow integration when using the old "legacy" layout. A thoughtful design of the exam room with respect to the computing may positively impact providers' workload, situation awareness, time spent in screen sharing activities, and workflow integration.
BACKGROUND: Challenges persist regarding how to integrate computing effectively into the exam room, while maintaining patient-centered care. PURPOSE: Our objective was to evaluate a new exam room design with respect to the computing layout, which included a wall-mounted monitor for ease of (re)-positioning. METHODS: In a lab-based experiment, 28 providers used prototypes of the new and older "legacy" outpatient exam room layouts in a within-subject comparison using simulated patient encounters. We measured efficiency, errors, workload, patient-centeredness (proportion of time the provider was focused on the patient), amount of screen sharing with the patient, workflow integration, and provider situation awareness. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the exam room layouts for efficiency, errors, or time spent focused on the patient. However, when using the new layout providers spent 75% more time in screen sharing activities with the patient, had 31% lower workload, and gave higher ratings for situation awareness (14%) and workflow integration (17%). CONCLUSIONS: Providers seemed to be unwilling to compromise their focus on the patient when the computer was in a fixed position in the corner of the room and, as a result, experienced greater workload, lower situation awareness, and poorer workflow integration when using the old "legacy" layout. A thoughtful design of the exam room with respect to the computing may positively impact providers' workload, situation awareness, time spent in screen sharing activities, and workflow integration.
Authors: Mindy Flanagan; Nicole Arbuckle; Jason J Saleem; Laura G Militello; David A Haggstrom; Bradley N Doebbeling Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2011-10-22
Authors: William Ventres; Sarah Kooienga; Nancy Vuckovic; Ryan Marlin; Peggy Nygren; Valerie Stewart Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Christopher Pearce; Michael Arnold; Christine Phillips; Stephen Trumble; Kathryn Dwan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-01-24 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Richard Frankel; Andrea Altschuler; Sheba George; James Kinsman; Holly Jimison; Nan R Robertson; John Hsu Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christopher Pearce; Kathryn Dwan; Michael Arnold; Christine Phillips; Stephen Trumble Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2008-08-27 Impact factor: 4.046