Advertisement

A Component-Based Evaluation Protocol for Clinical Decision Support Interfaces

  • Alessandro Febretti
  • Karen Dunn Lopez
  • Janet Stifter
  • Andrew E. Johnson
  • Gail M. Keenan
  • Diana J. Wilkie
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8012)

Abstract

In this paper we present our experience in designing and applying an evaluation protocol for assessing usability of a clinical decision support (CDS) system. The protocol is based on component-based usability testing, cognitive interviewing, and a rigorous coding scheme cross-referenced to a component library. We applied this protocol to evaluate alternate designs of a CDS interface for a nursing plan of care tool. The protocol allowed us to aggregate and analyze usability data at various granularity levels, supporting both validation of existing components and providing guidance for targeted redesign.

Keywords

component-based testing cognitive interviewing user-centric design healthcare interfaces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Belden, J., Grayson, R., Barnes, J.: Defining and testing EMR usability: Principles and proposed methods of EMR usability evaluation and rating. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, HIMSS (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haggstrom, D.A., Saleem, J.J., Russ, A.L., Jones, J., Russell, S.A., Chumbler, N.R.: Lessons learned from usability testing of the VA’s personal health record. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 18(suppl. 1), i13–i17 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hori, M., Kihara, Y., Kato, T.: Investigation of indirect oral operation method for think aloud usability testing. Human Centered Design, 38–46 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cho, I., Staggers, N., Park, I.: Nurses’ responses to differing amounts and information content in a diagnostic computer-based decision support application. Computers Informatics Nursing 28(2), 95–102 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brinkman, W.-P., Haakma, R., Bouwhuis, D.G.: Component-Specific Usability Testing. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 38(5), 1143–1155 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Keenan, G., Yakel, E., Yao, Y.: Maintaining a Consistent Big Picture: Meaningful Use of a Web-based POC EHR System. International Journal of Nursing Knowledge (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    NANDA International, Nursing diagnoses: Definition and classificationGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Moorhead S, M.M.I., Johnson, M.: Outcomes Project. Nursing outcomes classification (NOC). Mosby (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dochterman, B.G., JM: Nursing interventions classification (NIC). Mosby (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, B., Wright, A.: Health care costs in the last week of life: associations with end-of-life conversations. Archives of Internal Medicine (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beatty, P., Willis, G.: Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patton, M.: Qualitative research & evaluation methods (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hsieh, H., Shannon, S.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Armstrong, D., Gosling, A., Weinman, J., Marteau, T.: The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: an empirical study. Sociology (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morae usability testing software from TechSmith, http://www.techsmith.com/morae.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alessandro Febretti
    • 1
  • Karen Dunn Lopez
    • 2
  • Janet Stifter
    • 2
  • Andrew E. Johnson
    • 1
  • Gail M. Keenan
    • 2
  • Diana J. Wilkie
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, College of EngineeringUniversity of Illinois at Chicago (UIC)USA
  2. 2.Department of Health Systems Science, College of NursingUICUSA

Personalised recommendations