Requirements for a dashboard optimized for melanoma patient care through user-centered context exploration.
Context exploration
Dashboard
Electronic health records
Melanoma
Requirements
User experience
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 Jul 2024
29 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
08
03
2024
accepted:
16
07
2024
medline:
31
7
2024
pubmed:
31
7
2024
entrez:
30
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
For time-sensitive treatment of a patient with malignant melanoma, physicians must obtain a rapid overview of the patient's status. This study aimed to analyze context-specific features and processes at the point of care to derive requirements for a dashboard granting more straightforward access to information. The Think-Aloud method, contextual inquiries, and interviews were performed with physicians from the Department of Dermatology at the University Hospital Essen in Germany. The user statements and observations that were obtained were grouped and categorized using an affinity diagram. Based on the derived subjects, requirements were defined, confirmed, and prioritized. The resulting affinity diagram revealed four topics of importance at the point of care. These topics are "Identifying and Processing the Important", a comprehensive "Patient Record", tasks and challenges in the "Clinical Routine", and interactions and experiences with the available "Systems". All aspects have been reflected in 135 requirements for developing context- and indication-specific patient dashboards. Our work has elucidated the most important aspects to consider when designing a dashboard that improves patient care by enabling physicians to focus on the relevant information. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that the aspects most often mentioned are not context-specific and can be generalized to other medical contexts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39080418
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67857-2
pii: 10.1038/s41598-024-67857-2
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
17471Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : Research Training Group 2535
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
European Commission, RAND Europe, Open Evidence, BDI Research. Benchmarking Deployment of eHealth Among General Practitioners: Final Report (Publications Office, 2018).
Viitanen, J. et al. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: Physicians suffer from poor usability. Int. J. Med. Inform. 80(10), 708–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.06.010 (2011).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2011.06.010
pubmed: 21784701
Nielsen Norman Group. Medical Usability: How to Kill Patients Through Bad Design. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/medical-usability/ (Accessed 7 December 2023).
Viitanen, J., Tyllinen, M., Tynkkynen, E. & Lääveri, T. Usability of information systems: Experiences of outpatient physicians, outpatient nurses, and open care social welfare professionals from three large cross-sectional surveys in Finland. Int. J. Med. Inform. 165, 104836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104836 (2022).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2022.104836
pubmed: 35930926
Hudson, D., Kushniruk, A., Borycki, E. & Zuege, D. J. Physician satisfaction with a critical care clinical information system using a multimethod evaluation of usability. Int. J. Med. Inform. 112, 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.010 (2018).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.01.010
pubmed: 29500010
Topaz, M. et al. Nurse informaticians report low satisfaction and multi-level concerns with electronic health records: Results from an International Survey. AMIA Annu. Symp. Proc. 2016, 2016–2025 (2016).
pubmed: 28269961
Vainiomäki, S. et al. Better usability and technical stability could lead to better work-related well-being among physicians. Appl. Clin. Inform. 8(4), 1057–1067. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2017-06-RA-0094 (2017).
doi: 10.4338/ACI-2017-06-RA-0094
pubmed: 29241245
pmcid: 5802304
Ergonomics of Human–System Interaction: Part 11: Usability: Definitions and Concepts, 9241-11:2018(en) (International Organization for Standardization, 2018).
Kushniruk, A. W., Triola, M. M., Borycki, E. M., Stein, B. & Kannry, J. L. Technology induced error and usability: The relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application. Int. J. Med. Inform. 74(7–8), 519–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.01.003 (2005).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.01.003
pubmed: 16043081
Blijleven, V., Hoxha, F. & Jaspers, M. Workarounds in electronic health record systems and the revised sociotechnical electronic health record workaround analysis framework: Scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 24(3), e33046. https://doi.org/10.2196/33046 (2022).
doi: 10.2196/33046
pubmed: 35289752
pmcid: 8965666
Kaipio, J. et al. Usability problems do not heal by themselves: National survey on physicians’ experiences with EHRs in Finland. Int. J. Med. Inform. 97, 266–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.010 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2016.10.010
pubmed: 27919385
Norman, D., Miller, J. & Henderson, A. What you see, some of what’s in the future, and how we go about doing it. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI’95 155 (1995).
Belden, J. L. et al. Designing a medication timeline for patients and physicians. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 26(2), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocy143 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy143
pubmed: 30590550
Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems 9241-210:2019 (International Organization for Standardization, 2019).
van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C. et al. A holistic framework to improve the uptake and impact of eHealth technologies. J. Med. Internet Res. 13(4), e111. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1672 (2011).
doi: 10.2196/jmir.1672
pubmed: 22155738
pmcid: 3278097
Karen, H. & Sandra, J. Contextual inquiry: A participatory technique for system design. In Participatory Design: Principles and Practices 1st edn (eds Schuler, D. & Namioka, A.) 177–210 (CRC, 1993).
Kip, H., Beerlage-deJong, N. & Wentzel, J. The contextual inquiry. In eHealth Research, Theory, Development: A Multi-disciplinary Approach (eds van Gemert-Pijnen, L. et al.) 168–186 (Taylor and Francis, 2018).
Bleich, H. L. & Slack, W. V. Reflections on electronic medical records: When doctors will use them and when they will not. Int. J. Med. Inform. 79(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.10.002 (2010).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2009.10.002
pubmed: 19939731
Huryk, L. A. Factors influencing nurses’ attitudes towards healthcare information technology. J. Nurs. Manag. 18(5), 606–612. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01084.x (2010).
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01084.x
pubmed: 20636510
Schopf, T. R., Nedrebø, B., Hufthammer, K. O., Daphu, I. K. & Lærum, H. How well is the electronic health record supporting the clinical tasks of hospital physicians? A survey of physicians at three Norwegian hospitals. BMC Health Serv. Res. 19(1), 934. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4763-0 (2019).
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4763-0
pubmed: 31801518
pmcid: 6894258
Steininger, K. & Stiglbauer, B. EHR acceptance among Austrian resident doctors. Health Policy Technol. 4(2), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.02.003 (2015).
doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2015.02.003
Schön, E.-M., Thomaschewski, J. & Escalona, M. J. Agile requirements engineering: A systematic literature review. Comput. Stand. Interfaces 49, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011 (2017).
doi: 10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011
Maguire, M. Using human factors standards to support user experience and agile design. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 8009, Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction: 7th International Conference, UAHCI 2013, Held as Part of HCI International 2013, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 21–26, 2013; Proceedings (eds. Stephanidis, C. & Antona, M.) 185–194 (Springer, 2013).
Martikainen, S., Kaipio, J. & Lääveri, T. End-user participation in health information systems (HIS) development: Physicians’ and nurses’ experiences. Int. J. Med. Inform. 137, 104117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104117 (2020).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2020.104117
pubmed: 32179254
Groeneveld, S. W. M., den Ouden, M. E. M., van Gemert-Pijnen, J. E. W. C., Verdaasdonk, R. M. & van Os-Medendorp, H. Underestimated factors regarding the use of technology in daily practice of long-term care: Qualitative study among health care professionals. JMIR Nurs. 6, e41032. https://doi.org/10.2196/41032 (2023).
doi: 10.2196/41032
pubmed: 37494092
pmcid: 10413233
Harris, M. A. & Weistroffer, H. R. A new look at the relationship between user involvement in systems development and system success. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(1), 442. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.02442 (2009).
doi: 10.17705/1CAIS.02442
Norman, D. A. Things That Make Us Smart: Defending Human Attributes in the Age of the Machine (Basic Books, 1993).
Kushniruk, A. & Nøhr, C. Participatory design, user involvement and health IT evaluation. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 222, 139–151 (2016).
pubmed: 27198099
Bano, M., Zowghi, D. & da Rimini, F. User satisfaction and system success: An empirical exploration of user involvement in software development. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22(5), 2339–2372. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9465-1 (2017).
doi: 10.1007/s10664-016-9465-1
Simon, H. A. & Newell, A. Human problem solving: The state of the theory in 1970. Am. Psychol. 26, 145–159 (1971).
doi: 10.1037/h0030806
Lewis, C. Using the “Thinking-Aloud” Method in Cognitive Interface Design. https://dominoweb.draco.res.ibm.com/reports/RC9265.pdf (Accessed 7 December 2023) (1982).
Maramba, I., Chatterjee, A. & Newman, C. Methods of usability testing in the development of eHealth applications: A scoping review. Int. J. Med. Inform. 126, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.018 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.03.018
pubmed: 31029270
Jacobsen, J. & Meyer, L. Praxisbuch Usability und UX: Was alle wissen sollten, die Websites und Apps entwickeln 3rd edn. (Rheinwerk Verlag, 2022).
Kip, H. et al. Methods for human-centered ehealth development: Narrative scoping review. J. Med. Internet Res. 24(1), e31858. https://doi.org/10.2196/31858 (2022).
doi: 10.2196/31858
pubmed: 35084359
pmcid: 8832261
Holtzblatt, K. & Beyer, H. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems 1st edn. (Morgan Kaufmann, 1997).
Simon, R. W. & Canacari, E. G. A practical guide to applying lean tools and management principles to health care improvement projects. AORN J. 95(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aorn.2011.05.021 (2012).
doi: 10.1016/j.aorn.2011.05.021
pubmed: 22201573
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. Contextual design. Interactions 6(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291229 (1999).
doi: 10.1145/291224.291229
Coble, J. M., Maffitt, J. S., Orland, M. J. & Kahn, M. G. Contextual inquiry: Discovering physicians’ true needs. In Proceedings. Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care 469–473 (1995).
International Standard—Systems and Software Engineering—Life Cycle Processes—Requirements Engineering 29148 (ISO/IEC/IEEE).
Bradner, S. Key Words for Use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels (1997).
Gil-Rodríguez, E. P. et al. Organizational, contextual and user-centered design in e-health: Application in the area of telecardiology. In HCI and Usability for Medicine and Health Care: Third Symposium of the Workgroup Human–Computer Interaction and Usability Engineering of the Austrian Computer Society, USAB 2007 Graz, Austria, November, 22, 2007. Proceeding 69–82 (2007).
Tripathi, S., Naevor, A. J., Henrekin, L. L. & Welke, K. F. Design and development of daily morning surgical rounds in ICU by quality function deployment. Pediatr. Qual. Saf. 4(3), 171. https://doi.org/10.1097/pq9.0000000000000171 (2019).
doi: 10.1097/pq9.0000000000000171
Viitanen, J. Contextual inquiry method for user-centred clinical IT system design. In User Centred Networked Health Care 965–969. https://ebooks.iospress.nl/volumearticle/14314 (Accessed 7 December 2023) (IOS Press, 2011).
Charbonneau, D. H. & James, L. N. FluView and FluNet: Tools for influenza activity and surveillance. Med. Ref. Serv. Q. 38(4), 358–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2019.1657734 (2019).
doi: 10.1080/02763869.2019.1657734
pubmed: 31687905
Tory, M. & Möller, T. Human factors in visualization research. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 10(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2004.1260759 (2004).
doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2004.1260759
pubmed: 15382699
Padilla, L. M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., Hegarty, M. & Stefanucci, J. K. Decision making with visualizations: A cognitive framework across disciplines. Cogn. Res. Princ. Implic. 3, 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-018-0120-9 (2018).
doi: 10.1186/s41235-018-0120-9
pubmed: 30238055
pmcid: 6091269
Conati, C. & Maclaren, H. Exploring the role of individual differences in information visualization. In Proc. Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces 199–206 (2008).
Janssen, A. et al. Electronic health records that support health professional reflective practice: A missed opportunity in digital health. J. Healthc. Inform. Res. 6(4), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41666-022-00123-0 (2022).
doi: 10.1007/s41666-022-00123-0
pubmed: 36744083
Alami, H. et al. Rethinking the electronic health record through the quadruple aim: Time to align its value with the health system. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 20(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-1048-9 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s12911-020-1048-9
pubmed: 32066432
pmcid: 7027292