Difference between revisions of "Journal:Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems"
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Created stub. Saving and adding more.) |
Shawndouglas (talk | contribs) (Saving and adding more.) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
'''Methods''': A survey was distributed among LIS users at [[hospital]]s across the United States. The survey consisted of the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, participants were asked to rate the ease of performing 24 common tasks with an LIS. Finally, respondents provided comments on what they liked and disliked about using the LIS to provide diagnostic insight into the perceived usability of an LIS. | '''Methods''': A survey was distributed among LIS users at [[hospital]]s across the United States. The survey consisted of the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, participants were asked to rate the ease of performing 24 common tasks with an LIS. Finally, respondents provided comments on what they liked and disliked about using the LIS to provide diagnostic insight into the perceived usability of an LIS. | ||
'''Results''': The overall mean SUS score of 59.7 for the LIS evaluated is significantly lower than the benchmark of 68 (P < 0.001). All evaluated LIS received mean SUS scores below 68 except for Orchard Harvest (78.7). While the years of experience using the LIS was found to be a statistically significant influence on mean SUS scores, the combined effect of years of experience and LIS used did not account for the statistically significant difference in the mean SUS score between Orchard Harvest and each of the other evaluated LIS. | '''Results''': The overall mean SUS score of 59.7 for the LIS evaluated is significantly lower than the benchmark of 68 (P < 0.001). All evaluated LIS received mean SUS scores below 68 except for [[Orchard Software Corporation|Orchard Harvest]] (78.7). While the years of experience using the LIS was found to be a statistically significant influence on mean SUS scores, the combined effect of years of experience and LIS used did not account for the statistically significant difference in the mean SUS score between Orchard Harvest and each of the other evaluated LIS. | ||
'''Conclusions''': The results of this study indicate that overall usability of an LIS is poor. Usability lags that of systems evaluated across 446 usability surveys. | '''Conclusions''': The results of this study indicate that overall usability of an LIS is poor. Usability lags that of systems evaluated across 446 usability surveys. | ||
'''Keywords''': Health information technology usability, human–computer interaction, laboratory information systems | '''Keywords''': Health information technology usability, human–computer interaction, laboratory information systems | ||
==Introduction== | |||
The [[Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act]] was enacted in 2009 to promote the adoption of health information technology in a nationwide effort to improve the coordination, efficiency, and quality of care.<ref name="HHS_HITECH">{{cite web |url=https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/HITECH-act-enforcement-interim-final-rule/index.html |title=HITECH Act Enforcement Interim Final Rule |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |accessdate=30 April 2016}}</ref><ref name="HHS_HowDoes">{{cite web |url=https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/faqs/how-does-information-exchange-support-goals-hitech-act |title=How does information exchange support the goals of the HITECH Act? |work=HealthIT.gov |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |accessdate=30 April 2016}}</ref> However, numerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of electronic health records (EHRs) that is counterproductive to the adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of healthcare reform. According to the survey results released by The American College of Physicians and American EHR Partners, clinician dissatisfaction with the ease-of-use of certified EHRs had increased from 23% to 37% from 2010 to 2012.<ref name="ACPSurvey13">{{cite web |url=https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/survey-of-clinicians-user-satisfaction-with-electronic-health-records-has-decreased-since-2010 |title=Survey of Clinicians: User satisfaction with electronic health records has decreased since 2010 |publisher=American College of Physicians |date=05 March 2013 |accessdate=30 April 2016}}</ref> A 2013 RAND Corporation study sponsored by the American Medical Association found that poor usability of EHRs is a significant source of physician professional dissatisfaction.<ref name="FriedbergFactors13">{{cite book |title=Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy |author=Friedberg, M.W.; Chen, P.G.; Van Busum, K.R. et al. |publisher=The RAND Corporation |pages=123 |year=2013 |isbn=9780833082206 |url=https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR439/RAND_RR439.pdf |format=PDF}}</ref> Findings from a 2015 study conducted by consulting firm Accenture revealed that while 90% of the 601 physician respondents from the United States indicated that an easy-to-use data entry system is important for improving the quality of patient care, 58% of U.S. physician respondents reported that their EHRs are “hard to use.”<ref name="Accenture2015_15">{{cite web |url=https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-accenture-doctors-survey-2015-healthcare-it-pain-progress |title=2015 Doctors Survey on Health IT |publisher=Accenture |date=2015 |accessdate=30 April 2016}}</ref> | |||
With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact quality of care.<ref name="BowmanImpact13" /> | |||
While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little information on the usability of laboratory information systems (LIS). Yet, an LIS facilitates the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions.<ref name="HarrisonTheRole08" /> Medical and technical advances in genomics, requiring processing of an increased volume of complex laboratory data, further underscores the importance of developing a user-friendly LIS. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability. | |||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 19:21, 9 October 2017
| Full article title | Usability evaluation of laboratory information systems |
|---|---|
| Journal | Journal of Pathology Informatics |
| Author(s) | Mathews, Althea; Marc, David |
| Author affiliation(s) | College of St. Scholastica |
| Primary contact | Email: Available w/ login |
| Year published | 2017 |
| Volume and issue | 8 |
| Page(s) | 40 |
| DOI | 10.4103/jpi.jpi_24_17 |
| ISSN | 2153-3539 |
| Distribution license | Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported |
| Website | http://www.jpathinformatics.org |
| Download | http://www.jpathinformatics.org/temp/JPatholInform8140-5321878_144658.pdf (PDF) |
 |
This article should not be considered complete until this message box has been removed. This is a work in progress. |
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of electronic health records (EHRs) that is counterproductive to adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of healthcare reform. With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact the quality of care.[1] While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little information on the usability of laboratory information systems (LIS). Yet, an LIS facilitates the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions.[2] Medical and technical advances in genomics that require processing of an increased volume of complex laboratory data further underscore the importance of developing a user-friendly LIS. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability.
Methods: A survey was distributed among LIS users at hospitals across the United States. The survey consisted of the 10-item System Usability Scale (SUS). In addition, participants were asked to rate the ease of performing 24 common tasks with an LIS. Finally, respondents provided comments on what they liked and disliked about using the LIS to provide diagnostic insight into the perceived usability of an LIS.
Results: The overall mean SUS score of 59.7 for the LIS evaluated is significantly lower than the benchmark of 68 (P < 0.001). All evaluated LIS received mean SUS scores below 68 except for Orchard Harvest (78.7). While the years of experience using the LIS was found to be a statistically significant influence on mean SUS scores, the combined effect of years of experience and LIS used did not account for the statistically significant difference in the mean SUS score between Orchard Harvest and each of the other evaluated LIS.
Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that overall usability of an LIS is poor. Usability lags that of systems evaluated across 446 usability surveys.
Keywords: Health information technology usability, human–computer interaction, laboratory information systems
Introduction
The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act was enacted in 2009 to promote the adoption of health information technology in a nationwide effort to improve the coordination, efficiency, and quality of care.[3][4] However, numerous studies have revealed widespread clinician frustration with the usability of electronic health records (EHRs) that is counterproductive to the adoption of EHR systems to meet the aims of healthcare reform. According to the survey results released by The American College of Physicians and American EHR Partners, clinician dissatisfaction with the ease-of-use of certified EHRs had increased from 23% to 37% from 2010 to 2012.[5] A 2013 RAND Corporation study sponsored by the American Medical Association found that poor usability of EHRs is a significant source of physician professional dissatisfaction.[6] Findings from a 2015 study conducted by consulting firm Accenture revealed that while 90% of the 601 physician respondents from the United States indicated that an easy-to-use data entry system is important for improving the quality of patient care, 58% of U.S. physician respondents reported that their EHRs are “hard to use.”[7]
With poor system usability comes increased risk of negative unintended consequences. Usability issues could lead to user error and workarounds that have the potential to compromise patient safety and negatively impact quality of care.[1]
While there is ample research on EHR usability, there is little information on the usability of laboratory information systems (LIS). Yet, an LIS facilitates the timely provision of a great deal of the information needed by physicians to make patient care decisions.[2] Medical and technical advances in genomics, requiring processing of an increased volume of complex laboratory data, further underscores the importance of developing a user-friendly LIS. This study aims to add to the body of knowledge on LIS usability.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Bowman, S. (2013). "Impact of electronic health record systems on information integrity: Quality and safety implications". Perspectives in Health Information Management 10: 1C. PMC PMC3797550. PMID 24159271. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3797550.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Harrison, J.P.; McDowell, G.M. (2008). "The role of laboratory information systems in healthcare quality improvement". International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 21 (7): 679-91. doi:10.1108/09526860810910159. PMID 19055276.
- ↑ "HITECH Act Enforcement Interim Final Rule". U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/HITECH-act-enforcement-interim-final-rule/index.html. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
- ↑ "How does information exchange support the goals of the HITECH Act?". HealthIT.gov. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.healthit.gov/policy-researchers-implementers/faqs/how-does-information-exchange-support-goals-hitech-act. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
- ↑ "Survey of Clinicians: User satisfaction with electronic health records has decreased since 2010". American College of Physicians. 5 March 2013. https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/survey-of-clinicians-user-satisfaction-with-electronic-health-records-has-decreased-since-2010. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
- ↑ Friedberg, M.W.; Chen, P.G.; Van Busum, K.R. et al. (2013) (PDF). Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy. The RAND Corporation. pp. 123. ISBN 9780833082206. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR439/RAND_RR439.pdf.
- ↑ "2015 Doctors Survey on Health IT". Accenture. 2015. https://www.accenture.com/us-en/insight-accenture-doctors-survey-2015-healthcare-it-pain-progress. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
Notes
This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation and updates to spelling and grammar. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added.
