Johanna Kaipio1, Anne Kuusisto2, Hannele Hyppönen3, Tarja Heponiemi3, Tinja Lääveri4. 1. Aalto University, Espoo, Finland. Electronic address: johanna.kaipio@aalto.fi. 2. Satakunta Hospital District, Pori, Finland. 3. National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland. 4. Helsinki University Hospital, and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Usability associates with patient safety and quality of care. This article reports results from nation-wide usability-focused survey studies for physicians and nurses in Finland. Earlier research has shown dissatisfaction and serious deficiencies, which hamper the efficient use of health information systems (HIS); however, evaluation studies covering the viewpoints of both user groups are practically lacking. Our study aimed at comparing end-users' experiences on the usability of electronic health record (EHR) systems by employment sector and EHR brand. METHODS: To measure usability, we used the validated National Usability-focused HIS Scale (NuHISS). For this study, we selected 11 usability statements that relate to technical quality (n = 3), ease of use (n = 6), benefits (n = 1) and collaboration (n = 1), and were identical in both surveys. We report the responses from 3013 physicians and 2560 nurses working in public sector hospitals or primary care health centers in 2017. RESULTS: Results in total and by healthcare sector showed notable differences between nurses' and physicians' experiences on usability of their EHR systems. Physicians were more satisfied than nurses on technical quality and learnability of the EHR-systems, while nurses experienced the ease of use better and were more satisfied with collaboration aspects than physicians. Two EHR brands used in hospitals appeared to have succeeded in supporting physician workflows, while two others used in health centers were more suitable for nurses' needs. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' and physicians' experiences on EHR usability appear to vary more by EHR brand and employment sector rather than either professional group being generally more satisfied. Development of EHR systems should consider the perspectives of these two main user groups and their working contexts.
BACKGROUND: Usability associates with patient safety and quality of care. This article reports results from nation-wide usability-focused survey studies for physicians and nurses in Finland. Earlier research has shown dissatisfaction and serious deficiencies, which hamper the efficient use of health information systems (HIS); however, evaluation studies covering the viewpoints of both user groups are practically lacking. Our study aimed at comparing end-users' experiences on the usability of electronic health record (EHR) systems by employment sector and EHR brand. METHODS: To measure usability, we used the validated National Usability-focused HIS Scale (NuHISS). For this study, we selected 11 usability statements that relate to technical quality (n = 3), ease of use (n = 6), benefits (n = 1) and collaboration (n = 1), and were identical in both surveys. We report the responses from 3013 physicians and 2560 nurses working in public sector hospitals or primary care health centers in 2017. RESULTS: Results in total and by healthcare sector showed notable differences between nurses' and physicians' experiences on usability of their EHR systems. Physicians were more satisfied than nurses on technical quality and learnability of the EHR-systems, while nurses experienced the ease of use better and were more satisfied with collaboration aspects than physicians. Two EHR brands used in hospitals appeared to have succeeded in supporting physician workflows, while two others used in health centers were more suitable for nurses' needs. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' and physicians' experiences on EHR usability appear to vary more by EHR brand and employment sector rather than either professional group being generally more satisfied. Development of EHR systems should consider the perspectives of these two main user groups and their working contexts.
Authors: Edward R Melnick; Colin P West; Bidisha Nath; Pamela F Cipriano; Cheryl Peterson; Daniel V Satele; Tait Shanafelt; Liselotte N Dyrbye Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Oliver T Nguyen; Nyasia J Jenkins; Neel Khanna; Shivani Shah; Alexander J Gartland; Kea Turner; Lisa J Merlo Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Oliver T Nguyen; Shivani Shah; Alexander J Gartland; Arpan Parekh; Kea Turner; Sue S Feldman; Lisa J Merlo Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Anu-Marja Kaihlanen; Kia Gluschkoff; Hannele Hyppönen; Johanna Kaipio; Sampsa Puttonen; Tuulikki Vehko; Kaija Saranto; Liisa Karhe; Tarja Heponiemi Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2020-11-18
Authors: Rebecca M Jedwab; Alison M Hutchinson; Elizabeth Manias; Rafael A Calvo; Naomi Dobroff; Nicholas Glozier; Bernice Redley Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Tarja Heponiemi; Kia Gluschkoff; Tuulikki Vehko; Anu-Marja Kaihlanen; Kaija Saranto; Sari Nissinen; Janna Nadav; Sari Kujala Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 5.428