Mobile and tablet apps, ubiquitous and pervasive computing, wearable computing and domotics for health.

Background: Poor usability is a primary cause of unintended consequences related to the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, which negatively impacts patient safety. Due to the cost and time needed to carry out iterative evaluations, many EHR components, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), have not undergone rigorous usability testing prior to their deployment in clinical practice. Usability testing in the predeployment phase is crucial to eliminating usability issues and preventing costly fixes that will be needed if these issues are found after the system’s implementation. Objective: This study presents an example application of a systematic evaluation method that uses clinician experts with human-computer interaction (HCI) expertise to evaluate the usability of an electronic clinical decision support (CDS) intervention prior to its deployment in a randomized controlled trial. Methods: We invited 6 HCI experts to participate in a heuristic evaluation of our CDS intervention. Each expert was asked to independently explore the intervention at least twice. After completing the assigned tasks using patient scenarios, each expert completed a heuristic evaluation checklist developed by Bright et al based on Nielsen’s 10 heuristics. The experts also rated the overall severity of each identified heuristic violation on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problems and 4 indicates a usability catastrophe. Data from the experts’ coded comments were synthesized, and the severity of each identified usability heuristic was analyzed. Results: The 6 HCI experts included professionals from the fields of nursing (n=4), pharmaceutical science (n=1), and systems engineering (n=1). The mean overall severity scores of the identified heuristic violations ranged from 0.66 (flexibility and efficiency of use) to 2.00 (user control and freedom and error prevention), in which scores closer to 0 indicate a more usable system. The heuristic principle user control and freedom was identified as the most in need of refinement and, particularly by nonnursing HCI experts, considered as having major usability problems. In response to the heuristic match between system and the real world, the experts pointed to the reversed direction of our system’s pain scale scores (1=severe pain) compared to those commonly used in clinical practice (typically 1=mild pain); although this was identified as a minor usability problem, its refinement was repeatedly emphasized by nursing HCI experts. Conclusions: Our heuristic evaluation process is simple and systematic and can be used at multiple stages of system development to reduce the time and cost needed to establish the usability of a system before its widespread implementation. Furthermore, heuristic evaluations can help organizations develop transparent reporting protocols for usability, as required by Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act. Testing of EHRs and CDSSs by clinicians with HCI expertise in heuristic evaluation processes has the potential to reduce the frequency of testing while increasing its quality, which may reduce clinicians’ cognitive workload and errors and enhance the adoption of EHRs and CDSSs.

Examine electronic health record (EHR) use and factors contributing to documentation burden in acute and critical care nurses. A mixed-methods design was used guided by Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Key EHR components included, Flowsheets, Medication Administration Records (MAR), Care Plan, Notes, and Navigators. We first identified 5 units with the highest documentation burden in 1 university hospital through EHR log file analyses. Four nurses per unit were recruited and engaged in interviews and surveys designed to examine their perceptions of ease of use and usefulness of the 5 EHR components. A combination of inductive/deductive coding was used for qualitative data analysis. Nurses acknowledged the importance of documentation for patient care, yet perceived the required documentation as burdensome with levels varying across the 5 components. Factors contributing to burden included non-EHR issues (patient-to-nurse staffing ratios; patient acuity; suboptimal time management) and EHR usability issues related to design/features. Flowsheets, Care Plan, and Navigators were found to be below acceptable usability and contributed to more burden compared to MAR and Notes. The most troublesome EHR usability issues were data redundancy, poor workflow navigation, and cumbersome data entry based on unit type. Overall, we used quantitative and qualitative data to highlight challenges with current nursing documentation features in the EHR that contribute to documentation burden. Differences in perceived usability across the EHR documentation components were driven by multiple factors, such as non-alignment with workflows and amount of duplication of prior data entries. Nurses offered several recommendations for improving the EHR, including minimizing redundant or excessive data entry requirements, providing visual cues (eg, clear error messages, highlighting areas where missing or incorrect information are), and integrating decision support. Our study generated evidence for nurse EHR use and specific documentation usability issues contributing to burden. Findings can inform the development of solutions for enhancing multi-component EHR usability that accommodates the unique workflow of nurses. Documentation strategies designed to improve nurse working conditions should include non-EHR factors as they also contribute to documentation burden.