| Literature DB >> 33691524 |
Saif Khairat1, Cameron Coleman1, Randall Teal1, Salma Rezk1, Victoria Rand1, Thomas Bice1, Shannon S Carson1.
Abstract
The goal of this qualitative study was to assess physicians' perceptions around features of key screens within a prominent commercial EHR, and to solicit end-user recommendations for improved retrieval of high-priority clinical information. We conducted a qualitative, descriptive study of 25 physicians in a medical ICU setting. at a tertiary academic medical center. An in-depth, semi-structured interview guide was developed to elicit physician perceptions on information retrieval as well as favorable and unfavorable features of specific EHR screens. Transcripts were independently coded in a qualitative software management tool by at least two trained coders using a common code book. We successfully obtained vendor permission to map physicians perception's on full Epic© screenshots. Among the 25 physician participants (13 female; 5 attending physicians, 9 fellows, 11 residents), the majority of participants reported experiencing challenges finding clinical information in the EHR. We present the most favorable and unfavorable screen-level features for four central EHR screens: Flowsheet, Notes/Chart Review, Results Review, and Vital Signs. We also compiled participants' recommendations for a comprehensive EHR dashboard screen to better support clinical workflow and information retrieval in the medical ICU through User-Centered Design. ICU physicians demonstrated a mix of positive and negative attitudes toward specific screen-level features in a major vendor-based EHR system. Physician perceptions of information overload emerged as a theme across multiple EHR screens. Our findings underscore the importance of qualitative research and end-user feedback in EHR software design and interface optimization at both the vendor and institutional level.Entities:
Keywords: ICU; electronic health records; information retrieval; user-centered design
Year: 2021 PMID: 33691524 DOI: 10.1177/1460458221997914
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Health Informatics J ISSN: 1460-4582 Impact factor: 2.681