Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User Interface Requirements for Web-Based Integrated Care Pathways: Evidence from the Evaluation of an Online Care Pathway Investigation Tool

  • Systems-Level Quality Improvement
  • Published:
Journal of Medical Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Integrated care pathways (ICPs) define a chronological sequence of steps, most commonly diagnostic or treatment, to be followed in providing care for patients. Care pathways help to ensure quality standards are met and to reduce variation in practice. Although research on the computerisation of ICP progresses, there is still little knowledge on what are the requirements for designing user-friendly and usable electronic care pathways, or how users (normally health care professionals) interact with interfaces that support design, analysis and visualisation of ICPs. The purpose of the study reported in this paper was to address this gap by evaluating the usability of a novel web-based tool called COCPIT (Collaborative Online Care Pathway Investigation Tool). COCPIT supports the design, analysis and visualisation of ICPs at the population level. In order to address the aim of this study, an evaluation methodology was designed based on heuristic evaluations and a mixed method usability test. The results showed that modular visualisation and direct manipulation of information related to the design and analysis of ICPs is useful for engaging and stimulating users. However, designers should pay attention to issues related to the visibility of the system status and the match between the system and the real world, especially in relation to the display of statistical information about care pathways and the editing of clinical information within a care pathway. The paper concludes with recommendations for interface design.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Campbell, A., Hotchkiss, R., Bradshaw, N., and Porteous, M., Integrated care pathways. British Medical Journal 316(7125):133–137, 1998.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Map of Medicine. http://www.mapofmedicine.com/. Retrieved 08/06/12, 2012.

  3. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Pathways. http://pathways.nice.org.uk/. Retrieved 08/06/12, 2012.

  4. Manson, A., et al., In pursuit of excellence: an integrated care pathway for C1 inhibitor deficiency. Clinical and experimental immunology 173(1):1–7, 2013.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Caballero, T., et al., International consensus and practical guidelines on the gynecologic and obstetric management of female patients with hereditary angioedema caused by C1 inhibitor deficiency. The journal of allergy and clinical immunology 129(2):308–320, 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Mellick, D., et al., Understanding outcomes based on the post-acute hospitalization pathways followed by persons with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 17(1):55–71, 2003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ainsworth, J., and Buchan, I., COCPIT: a tool for integrated care pathway variance analysis. Stud Health Technol Inform 180:995–999, 2012.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kushniruk, A., Analysis of complex decision-making processes in Health Care: cognitive approaches to health informatics. Journal of Biomedical informatics 34(5):365–376, 2001.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vanhaecht, K., Ovretveit, J., Elliot, M., Sermens, W., Ellershaw, J., and Panella, M., Have we drawn the wrong conclusions about the value of care pathways? Is a cochraine review appropriate? Evaluation and the Health profession 35(1):28–42, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, B., Williams, R., Ainsworth, J., and Buchan, I., Missed opportunities mapping: computable healthcare quality improvement. Stud Health Technol Inform 192:387–391, 2013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kitchiner, D., Davidson, C., and Bundred, P., Integrated care pathways: effective tools for continuous evaluation of clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in clinical practice 2(1):65–69, 1996.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Graham, T. A. D., Kushniruk, A. W., Bullard, M. J., Holroyd, B. R., Meurer, D. P., and Rowe, B. H., How usability of a web-based clinical decision support system has the potential to contribute to adverse medical events. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008:257–261, 2008.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Moja, L., Kwag, K. H., Lytras, T., Bertizzolo, L., Brandt, L., Pecoraro, V., Rigon, G., Vaona, A., Ruggiero, F., Mangia, M., Iorio, A., Kunnamo, I., and Bonovas, S., Effectiveness of computerised decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health; 104(2):e12–e22, 2014.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Horsky, J., Schiff, G. D., Johnston, D., Mercincavage, L., Bell, D., and Middleton, B., Interface design principles for usable decision support: a targeted review of best practicess for clinical prescribing interventions. J Biomed Inform; 45(6):1202–16, 2012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Marcilly, R., Seeking evidence to support usability principles for medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) functions. Stud. Health Technol. Inform; 192:427–431, 2013.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O’Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., and Oxman, A. D., Audit and Feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. The Cochrane Collaboration 7:1–227, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nielsen, J., Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco 1993.

  18. Microsoft health Common User Interface. Available at: http://www.mscui.net/Default.aspx. Accessed 13/09/2013, 2010.

  19. Ivers, N. M., Tu, K., Francis, J., Barnsley, J., Shah, B., Upshur, R., Kiss, A., Grimshaw, J. M., and Zwarenstein, M., Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care. Implementation Science 5(98):1–10, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  20. White, P., and Rousdari, A., Use of ontologies for monitoring electronic health records for compliance with clinical practice guidelines. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics 164:103–109, 2011.

  21. Bernstein, K., and Andersen, U., Managing care pathways combining SNOMED CT, archetypes and an electronic guideline system. Stud Health Technol Inform 136:353–358, 2008.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Peleg, M., Keren, S., and Denekamp, Y., Mapping computerised clinical guidelines to electronic medical records: knowledge-data ontological records (KDOM). Journal of Biomedical Informatics 41(1):180–201, 2008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hu, J. S., Zhou, T. S., Yu, H. Y., Suzuki, M., and Araki, K., Ontology-based clinical pathways with semantic rules. J. of Medical Systems 36(4):2203–12, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Huang, Z., Lu, X., and Duan, H., Using recommendations to support adaptive clinical pathways. J. of Medical Systems 36(3):1849–60, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Olive, M., Lashwood, A., and Solomonides, T., Care pathway records with ontologies: potential uses in medical research and health care. International Journal of care pathways 15(1):15–17, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Buenestado, D., Elorz, J., Perez-Yarza, E., Iruetaguena, A., Segundo, U., Barrena, R., and Pikatza, J., Evaluating acceptance and user experience of a guideline-based clinical decision support system execution platform. J. of Medical Systems 37:1–9, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. De Allegri, M., Schwarzback, M., Loerbroks, A., and Ronellenfitsch, U., Which factors are important for the successful development and implementation of clinical pathways? A qualitative study. BMJ Quality & Safety 20:203–208, 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lyng, K.M., From clinical practice guidelines, to clinical guidance in practice – impact for computerization. International Journal of medical informatics 82(12):358–63, 2013.

  29. Lyng, K. M., and Pedersen, B. S., Participatory design for the computerisation of clinical practice guidelines. J. of Biomedical informatics 44(5):909–918, 2011.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hayward-Rowse, L., and Whittle, T., A pilot project todesign, implement and evaluate an electronic integrated care pathway. Journal of Nursing Management 14:564–571, 2006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Daniyal, A., and Abidi, S.S.R., Semantic web-based modeling of clinical pathways using the UML Activity diagrams and OWL-S. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5943:88–99, 2010.

  32. Scott-Wright, A., Fischer, R., Denekamp, Y., and Boxwala, A., A methodology for modular representation of guidelines. Stud Health Technol Inform 107:149–153, 2004.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Schwabe, D., and Rossi, G., An object-oriented approach to web-based applications design. Object Systems 4(4):207–225, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Muller, H., Kalpathy-Cramer, J., Caputo, B., Syeda-Mahmood, T., and Wang, F., Overview of the first workshop on medical content-based retrieval for clinical decision support at MICCAI 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 5853:1–17, 2009.

  35. Nielsen, J., 10 Usability heuristics for user interface design. Available at: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/. Retrieved 08/12/2013, 1995.

  36. Horsky, J., McColgan, K., Pang, J., Melnikas, A., Linder, J., Schipper, J., and Middleton, B., Complementary methods of system usability evaluation: survey and observations during software design and development cycles. J. of Biomedical Informatics 43(5):782–790, 2010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Zeng, M., and Qin, J., Metadata Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2008

  38. Nielsen, J., Severity Ratings for usability problems. Available at: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-to-rate-the-severity-of-usability-problems/. Retrieved 08/09/2013, 1995.

  39. Shneiderman, B., and Plaisant, C., Designing the user interface. Pearson, London, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Shneiderman, B., Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human computer interaction. Addison-Wisley, Reading, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Krippendorff, K., Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2004.

  42. Samwald, M., Gimenez, J. A. M., Boyce, R. D., Freimuth, R. R., Adlassning, K.-P., and Dumontier, M., Pharmacogenomic knowledge representation, reasoning and genome-based clinical decision support based on OWL 2 DL ontologies. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Manking 15:12, 2015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lex, A., Streit, M., Schulz, H.-J., Partl, C., Schmalstieg, D., Park, P.-J., and Gehlenborg, N., StratomeX: visual analysis of large-scale heterogeneous genomics data for cancer subtype characterization. Computer graphics forum 31(3):1175–1184, 2012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bakhshi-Raiez, F., de Keizer, N. F., Corret, R., Dorrepaal, M., Dongelmaus, D., and Jaspers, M. W. M., A usability evaluation of a SNOMED CT based compositional interface terminology for intensive care. Int J. of Medical Informatics 81(5):351–362, 2012.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Common User Interface Team. Consultation document: suggestions for implementing SNOMED CT into the user interface of an electronic healthcare system. Available at: http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/data/cui/snomedctcui/cd_impsnomd_ehs.pdf, 2011

  46. Schulz, S., Marko, K., and Suntisrivaraporn, B., Formal representation of complex SNOMED CT expressions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 8(1):1–6, 2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Dy, S., and Gurses, A., Care pathways and patient safety: key concepts, patient outcomes and related interventions. International Journal of Care Pathways 14(3):124–128, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Borycki, E., Kushniruk, A., and Brender, J., Theories, models and frameworks fordiagnosing technology-induced error. Stud Health Technol and Inform 160:714–718, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Carroll, C., Marsden, P., Soden, P., Naylor, E., New, J., and Dornan, T., Involving users in the design and usability evaluation of a clinical decision support system. Computer methods and programs in biomedicine 69(2):123–135, 2002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Braithwaite, D. W., and Goldstone, R. L., Flexibility in data interpretation: effects of representational format. Frontiers in psychology 4:1–16, 2013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ware, C., Information Visualisation: perception for design. Morgan Kaufman, San Francisco, 2012.

  52. Kessell, A., and Tversky, B., Visualising space, time and agents: production, performance and preference. Cognitive Processing 12:43–52, 2011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Vessey, I., and Galletta, D., Cognitive fit: an empirical study of information acquisition. Information Systems Research 2(1):63–84, 1991.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by a multi-agency initiative led by the MRC; the Health eResearch Centre, Grant Ref: MR/K006665/1 and builds on work funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as part of the Greater Manchester Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MRC Health e-Research Centre & Centre for Health Informatics, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, J. McFarlane Building, G304, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK, M13 9PL

    Panos Balatsoukas, Richard Williams, Colin Davies, John Ainsworth & Iain Buchan

Authors
  1. Panos Balatsoukas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Colin Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John Ainsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Iain Buchan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Panos Balatsoukas.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Systems-Level Quality Improvement

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balatsoukas, P., Williams, R., Davies, C. et al. User Interface Requirements for Web-Based Integrated Care Pathways: Evidence from the Evaluation of an Online Care Pathway Investigation Tool. J Med Syst 39, 183 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-015-0357-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-015-0357-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation