» Articles » PMID: 27437057

Usability Testing of Two Ambulatory EHR Navigators

Overview
Publisher Thieme
Date 2016 Jul 21
PMID 27437057
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Despite widespread electronic health record (EHR) adoption, poor EHR system usability continues to be a significant barrier to effective system use for end users. One key to addressing usability problems is to employ user testing and user-centered design.

Objectives: To understand if redesigning an EHR-based navigation tool with clinician input improved user performance and satisfaction.

Methods: A usability evaluation was conducted to compare two versions of a redesigned ambulatory navigator. Participants completed tasks for five patient cases using the navigators, while employing a think-aloud protocol. The tasks were based on Meaningful Use (MU) requirements.

Results: The version of navigator did not affect perceived workload, and time to complete tasks was longer in the redesigned navigator. A relatively small portion of navigator content was used to complete the MU-related tasks, though navigation patterns were highly variable across participants for both navigators. Preferences for EHR navigation structures appeared to be individualized.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the importance of EHR usability assessments to evaluate group and individual performance of different interfaces and preferences for each design.

Citing Articles

Usability Assessment of Salud Electronic Dental Record System.

Alshammari A, Awawdeh M, Alsalwah N, Alnafrani S, Alsaeed S Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2025; 17:111-120.

PMID: 39963387 PMC: 11830931. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S481003.


Involving Health Care Professionals in the Development of Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review.

Busse T, Jux C, Laser J, Rasche P, Vollmar H, Ehlers J JMIR Hum Factors. 2023; 10:e45598.

PMID: 37428524 PMC: 10366971. DOI: 10.2196/45598.


Novel Note Templates to Enhance Signal and Reduce Noise in Medical Documentation: Prospective Improvement Study.

Feldman J, Goodman A, Hochman K, Chakravartty E, Austrian J, Iturrate E JMIR Form Res. 2023; 7:e41223.

PMID: 36821760 PMC: 10134024. DOI: 10.2196/41223.


Association of Electronic Health Record Inbasket Message Characteristics With Physician Burnout.

Baxter S, Radha Saseendrakumar B, Cheung M, Savides T, Longhurst C, Sinsky C JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(11):e2244363.

PMID: 36449288 PMC: 9713605. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.44363.


Systematic review of applied usability metrics within usability evaluation methods for hospital electronic healthcare record systems: Metrics and Evaluation Methods for eHealth Systems.

Wronikowska M, Malycha J, Morgan L, Westgate V, Petrinic T, Young J J Eval Clin Pract. 2021; 27(6):1403-1416.

PMID: 33982356 PMC: 9438452. DOI: 10.1111/jep.13582.


References
1.
Jaspers M . A comparison of usability methods for testing interactive health technologies: methodological aspects and empirical evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2008; 78(5):340-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.10.002. View

2.
Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson M, Diamond H . An interface-driven analysis of user interactions with an electronic health records system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008; 16(2):228-37. PMC: 2649313. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2852. View

3.
Saleem J, Flanagan M, Wilck N, Demetriades J, Doebbeling B . The next-generation electronic health record: perspectives of key leaders from the US Department of Veterans Affairs. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(e1):e175-7. PMC: 3715365. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001748. View

4.
Han H, Lopp L . Writing and reading in the electronic health record: an entirely new world. Med Educ Online. 2013; 18:1-7. PMC: 3566375. DOI: 10.3402/meo.v18i0.18634. View

5.
Johnson C, Johnson T, Zhang J . A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. J Biomed Inform. 2005; 38(1):75-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.005. View