Himalaya Patel

Design concepts to support management of outpatient consultations in the Veterans Health Administration

This poster describes a project to improve understanding of the challenges associated with managing consultations in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We conducted interviews and observations with primary care providers and specialists at two VHA facilities. Using qualitative analysis, we identified cognitive requirements, challenges associated with each, and design seeds. During the poster session, we will present design concepts exploring interventions to support management of consultations.

Comparative usability evaluation of consultation order templates in a simulated primary care environment

Communication breakdowns in the referral process negatively impact clinical workflow and patient safety. There is a lack of evidence demonstrating the impact of published design recommendations addressing contributing issues with consultation order templates. This study translated the recommendations into a computer-based prototype and conducted a comparative usability evaluation. With a scenario-based simulation, 30 clinicians (referrers) participated in a within-group, counterbalanced experiment comparing the prototype with their present electronic order entry system. The prototype significantly increased satisfaction (Cohens d = 1.80, 95% CI [1.19, 2.41], p < .001), and required significantly less mental effort (d = 0.67 [0.14, 1.20], p < .001). Regarding efficiency, the prototype required significantly fewer mouse clicks (mean difference = 29 clicks, p < .001). Although overall task time did not differ significantly (d = -0.05 [-0.56, 0.47]), the prototype significantly quickened identification of the appropriate specialty clinic (mean difference = 12 s, d = 0.98 [0.43, 1.52], p < .001). The experimental evidence demonstrated that clinician-centered interfaces significantly improved system usability during ordering of consultations.

Usability Assessment of Secure Messaging for Clinical Document Sharing between Health Care Providers and Patients

BACKGROUND Web-based patient portals feature secure messaging systems that enable health care providers and patients to communicate information. However, little is known about the usability of these systems for clinical document sharing. OBJECTIVE This article evaluates the usability of a secure messaging system for providers and patients in terms of its ability to support sharing of electronic clinical documents. METHODS We conducted usability testing with providers and patients in a human-computer interaction laboratory at a Midwestern U.S. hospital. Providers sent a medication list document to a fictitious patient via secure messaging. Separately, patients retrieved the clinical document from a secure message and returned it to a fictitious provider. We collected use errors, task completion, task time, and satisfaction. RESULTS Twenty-nine individuals participated: 19 providers (6 physicians, 6 registered nurses, and 7 pharmacists) and 10 patients. Among providers, 11 (58%) attached and sent the clinical document via secure messaging without requiring assistance, in a median (range) of 4.5 (1.8-12.7) minutes. No patients completed tasks without moderator assistance. Patients accessed the secure messaging system within 3.6 (1.2-15.0) minutes; retrieved the clinical document within 0.8 (0.5-5.7) minutes; and sent the attached clinical document in 6.3 (1.5-18.1) minutes. Although median satisfaction ratings were high, with 5.8 for providers and 6.0 for patients (scale, 0-7), we identified 36 different use errors. Physicians and pharmacists requested additional features to support care coordination via health information technology, while nurses requested features to support efficiency for their tasks. CONCLUSION This study examined the usability of clinical document sharing, a key feature of many secure messaging systems. Our results highlight similarities and differences between provider and patient end-user groups, which can inform secure messaging design to improve learnability and efficiency. The observations suggest recommendations for improving the technical aspects of secure messaging for clinical document sharing.

Formative Usability Evaluation of a Novel Tool for Medication Reconciliation

To decrease medication errors, a common cause of injury to patients, we developed a novel electronic tool to facilitate asynchronous communication between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients for medication reconciliation. However, it was unknown whether the tool adequately supported HCPs’ usability needs. Our objective was to conduct an iterative usability evaluation of the tool with physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, in preparation for a randomized controlled trial. We hypothesized that we would identify design weaknesses that could be addressed via interface modifications prior to the trial. We completed a mixed-method, formative usability evaluation with 20 HCPs in the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development, Human-Computer Interaction and Simulation Laboratory located within a major medical center. The tool in this study is formally known as the Secure Messaging for Medication Reconciliation Tool (SMMRT). The evaluation consisted of four sequential steps: 1) phase I usability testing to assess the baseline tool along with small, iterative design changes throughout testing; 2) heuristic evaluation; 3) implement major design changes that incorporate findings from previous steps; and 4) phase II usability testing to assess the implemented design changes and further refine the tool. This presentation focuses on steps 1 and 4 related to usability testing. During testing, HCPs worked through a real case consisting of a patient discharged from the hospital within the past 30 days who had at least 5 outpatient medications. We collected data on efficiency, usability errors, and participants’ satisfaction, along with participants’ ability to detect and address three distinct types of medication errors via the tool. For the latter, we inserted three safety probes into the simulation: 1) a missing medication (i.e., omission); 2) an extraneous medication (i.e., commission); and 3) an inaccurate dose (i.e., dose discrepancy). Data were analyzed descriptively, rather than via statistical comparisons, due to the formative and iterative nature of this research. There was no indication of efficiency gains during iterative prototyping and testing. Highlights of usability errors included confusion about medication entry fields; incorrect assumptions regarding medication list accuracy; inadequate medication information sorting and organization; and premature closure. Additionally, HCPs described usability errors that might occur in clinical practice. For example, medication images on the tool may not match what is dispensed to patients. HCPs also expressed concern that medication updates made via the tool may not be consistently updated in the electronic health record. In terms of satisfaction, HCPs’ ratings tended to increase as design modifications were implemented. After phase II usability testing, their overall satisfaction was favorable. Finally, for each of the three safety probes, 50% or fewer of HCPs identified the associated medication error. This research illustrates the importance of usability evaluations as a precursor to randomized trials of health information technology. Our multi-step approach to usability testing, with heuristic evaluation at the midpoint, may inform the design of other usability evaluations. While efficiency gains were not realized, user satisfaction improved. The inclusion of safety probes was especially valuable, since probes allowed us to assess error detection rates. There may be opportunities for human factors professionals to expand the sophistication and types of probes used in future healthcare research. Future studies are needed to develop more advanced design approaches that facilitate healthcare professionals’ detection of medication errors.

Comparison of two electronic order forms for medical consultation: Think-aloud usability assessment with referring clinicians

Center for Health Information and Communication, Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development Service CIN 13-416, Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center, Indianapolis, IN, USA; Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, IN, USA; Indiana University School of Informatics and Computing, Richmond, IN, USA; Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA; College of Pharmacy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA