Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 4, pp 203–210 | Cite as

Summative Software Evaluation of a Therapeutic Guideline Assistance System for Empiric Antimicrobial Therapy in ICU

  • Rainer Röhrig
  • Hannah Beuteführ
  • Bernd HartmannEmail author
  • Eileen Niczko
  • Birgit Quinzio
  • Axel Junger
  • Gunter Hempelmann



While developing the patient data management system ICUData in close cooperation with the software company (IMESO GmbH, Hüttenberg, Germany), a therapeutic guideline assistance system for empiric antimicrobial therapy in ICU (called “Antibiotic Wizard”) could be introduced and integrated into the existing software. After its introduction into clinical routine, the first version was to be tested, checked for usability and compared to other software products with the help of the IsoMetrics s inventory (based on the EN ISO 9241-10 for computer-assisted workflows).


Half a year after introducing the “Antibiotic Wizard” in the ICUs, 40 physicians from different specialties at different levels of training were surveyed in order to detect deficiencies in the use of the program. The results of these surveys were compared to surveys on the word processing software Word® for Windows® (WinWord®) from Microsoft®, the hospital information system IS-H*MED from SAP® (online and paper surveys) and the administrative program, SAP R/3 HR, also from SAP®.


Reliabilities (Cronbach’s Alpha) of the subscales ranged from satisfactory (α > 0.70) to good (α > 0.80), except for “Controllability” (α = 0.663) and “Error tolerance” (α = 0.693). Medians for individual subscales ranged between 3.04 (“Error tolerance”) and 3.96 (“Suitability for learning”). The “Antibiotic Wizard” showed significantly better results compared to both IS-H*MED and SAP R/3 HR in the subscales of “Suitability for the task”, “Self-descriptiveness” and “Suitability for learning”. In contrast, “Self-descriptiveness” “Controllability” and “Error tolerance” were significantly worse compared to WinWord®.


In generally, the usability of the “Antibiotic Wizard” was deemed good. Some weaknesses were found in the fields of “Error tolerance” and “Controllability”. These problems will be corrected in future versions.


EN ISO 9241-10 IsoMetricss Patient data management system usability questionnaire 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We would like to thank MoReData GmbH in Giessen, Germany for their help in statistical analysis.

Financial support for this study was provided in part by a grant from IMESO GmbH, Hüttenberg, Germany. The founding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing and publishing the report.


  1. 1.
    Berg M, Langenberg C, vd B I, Kwakkernaat J Considerations for sociotechnical design: experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical context. Int.J Med.Inform. 1998;52:243–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Williams LS. Microchips versus stethoscopes: Calgary hospital, MDs face off over controversial computer system. CMAJ 1992;147:1534–1547Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holz auf der Heide B Welche software-ergonomischen evaluationsverfahren können was leisten? In: Rödiger KH (ed) Software-ergonomie ‚93, Von der benutzeroberfläche zur arbeitsgestaltung. Teubner, Stuttgart; 1993:157–172Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oppermann R, Reiterer H Software-ergonomische evaluation. In: Eberleh E, Oberquelle H, Oppermann R (eds) Einführung in die software-ergonomie. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin; 1994:335–371Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dzida W. Software-ergonomische Qualitätsprüfung - Utopie oder realistisches Ziel? In: Cakir A, Cakir G, eds., Was bringen die europäischen Regelwerke für Bildschirmarbeitsplätze? Berlin: 1991:61–76Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eason KD. Towards experimental study of usability. Behav Inf Technol 1984;3:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rauterberg M. Lässt sich die gebrauchstauglichkeit interaktiver software messen? Und wenn ja, wie? Ergonomie and Informatik. 1992;16:3–18Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Michel A, Benson M, Junger A, Sciuk G, Hempelmann G, Dudeck J, Marquardt K. Design principles of a clinical information system for intensive care units (ICUData). Stud Health TechnolInf 2000;77:921–924Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gediga G, Hamborg KC, Düntsch I. The IsoMetrics usability inventory: an operationalization of ISO 9241-10 supporting summative and formative evaluation of software systems. Behav Inf Technol 1999;18:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hamborg KC, Vehse B, Bludau HB. Questionnaire based usability evaluation of hospital information systems. Elect J Inf Syst Eval 2004;7:21–30Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gruber C. Arbeitseffizienz im Büro. Psychische Einflüsse auf SAP R/3–unterstützte Arbeitsprozesse. Dissertation, Psychologisches Institut., Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg, 2000:59–61Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vogel F, Bodmann K. Empfehlungen zur kalkulierten parenteralen Initialtherapie bakterieller erkrankungen bei erwachsenen. Chemotherapie J 2004;13:46–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rainer Röhrig
    • 1
  • Hannah Beuteführ
    • 1
  • Bernd Hartmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eileen Niczko
    • 1
  • Birgit Quinzio
    • 2
  • Axel Junger
    • 1
  • Gunter Hempelmann
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care Medicine, and Pain TherapyUniversity Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbHGiessenGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical PsychologyUniversity Hospital Giessen and Marburg GmbHGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations