Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Sep 10;2(2):e14.
doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.4537.

Usability Testing of a Complex Clinical Decision Support Tool in the Emergency Department: Lessons Learned

Affiliations

Usability Testing of a Complex Clinical Decision Support Tool in the Emergency Department: Lessons Learned

Anne Press et al. JMIR Hum Factors. .

Abstract

Background: As the electronic health record (EHR) becomes the preferred documentation tool across medical practices, health care organizations are pushing for clinical decision support systems (CDSS) to help bring clinical decision support (CDS) tools to the forefront of patient-physician interactions. A CDSS is integrated into the EHR and allows physicians to easily utilize CDS tools. However, often CDSS are integrated into the EHR without an initial phase of usability testing, resulting in poor adoption rates. Usability testing is important because it evaluates a CDSS by testing it on actual users. This paper outlines the usability phase of a study, which will test the impact of integration of the Wells CDSS for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis into a large urban emergency department, where workflow is often chaotic and high stakes decisions are frequently made. We hypothesize that conducting usability testing prior to integration of the Wells score into an emergency room EHR will result in increased adoption rates by physicians.

Objective: The objective of the study was to conduct usability testing for the integration of the Wells clinical prediction rule into a tertiary care center's emergency department EHR.

Methods: We conducted usability testing of a CDS tool in the emergency department EHR. The CDS tool consisted of the Wells rule for PE in the form of a calculator and was triggered off computed tomography (CT) orders or patients' chief complaint. The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Queens, New York. There were seven residents that were recruited and participated in two phases of usability testing. The usability testing employed a "think aloud" method and "near-live" clinical simulation, where care providers interacted with standardized patients enacting a clinical scenario. Both phases were audiotaped, video-taped, and had screen-capture software activated for onscreen recordings.

Results: Phase I: Data from the "think-aloud" phase of the study showed an overall positive outlook on the Wells tool in assessing a patient for a PE diagnosis. Subjects described the tool as "well-organized" and "better than clinical judgment". Changes were made to improve tool placement into the EHR to make it optimal for decision-making, auto-populating boxes, and minimizing click fatigue. Phase II: After incorporating the changes noted in Phase 1, the participants noted tool improvements. There was less toggling between screens, they had all the clinical information required to complete the tool, and were able to complete the patient visit efficiently. However, an optimal location for triggering the tool remained controversial.

Conclusions: This study successfully combined "think-aloud" protocol analysis with "near-live" clinical simulations in a usability evaluation of a CDS tool that will be implemented into the emergency room environment. Both methods proved useful in the assessment of the CDS tool and allowed us to refine tool usability and workflow.

Keywords: Wells criteria; clinical decision support; clinical prediction rules; emergency department; pulmonary embolism; usability testing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CDS tool; order entry workflow. PE: pulmonary embolism, ER: emergency room, CT: computed tomography, VQ: ventilation/perfusion, LE: lower extremity, HPI: history of present illness, CDS: clinical decision support, DVT: deep vein thrombosis, SOB: shortness of breath, ROS: review of symptoms, D-dimer: Fibrin split product, MD: medical doctor.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CDS tool; triage nurse workflow. PE: pulmonary embolism, ER: emergency room, CT: computed tomography, VQ: ventilation/perfusion, LE: lower extremity, HPI: history of present illness, CDS: clinical decision support, DVT: deep vein thrombosis, SOB: shortness of breath, ROS: review of symptoms, D-dimer: Fibrin split product, MD: medical doctor.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Upstream versus downstream trigger locations. PE: pulmonary embolism, CDS: clinical decision support.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Drescher FS, Chandrika S, Weir ID, Weintraub JT, Berman L, Lee R, Van Buskirk Patricia D. Wang Y, Adewunmi A, Fine JM. Effectiveness and acceptability of a computerized decision support system using modified Wells criteria for evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism. Ann Emerg Med. 2011 Jun;57(6):613–621. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.09.018. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, Légaré France, van der Weijden Trudy. Edwards A, May C. Arduous implementation: Does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implement Sci. 2008;3:57. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-57. http://www.implementationscience.com/content/3//57 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Randolph AG, Haynes RB, Wyatt JC, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature: XVIII. How to use an article evaluating the clinical impact of a computer-based clinical decision support system. JAMA. 1999 Jul 7;282(1):67–74. - PubMed
    1. McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, Naylor CD, Stiell IG, Richardson WS. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: How to use articles about clinical decision rules. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 2000 Jul 5;284(1):79–84. - PubMed
    1. McGinn TG, McCullagh L, Kannry J, Knaus M, Sofianou A, Wisnivesky JP, Mann DM. Efficacy of an evidence-based clinical decision support in primary care practices: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Sep 23;173(17):1584–1591. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.8980. - DOI - PubMed