Heuristic evaluation of eNote: an electronic notes system

From Clinfowiki
Revision as of 21:37, 29 September 2015 by Katkuri kristina (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Introduction/Background

eNotes use a combination of document templates and free text (natural language) for physicians to use to make clinical notes. Bright, Bakken, and Johnson used a heuristic evaluation which is a type of usability inspection method. This method is inexpensive, easy to use, and provides quick feedback. [1]

Methods

Bright et al. asked five heuristic evaluation experts to fill out a clinician’s eNote and then answer 118 questions from the Nielsen’s usability heuristics concerning the eNote. The experts either answered yes or no to these questions.

Results

For each evaluation a score was derived by subtracting the negative answers from the total number of questions. A higher number resulted in a higher usability. The results include: higher numbers for consistency with standards and recognition rather than recall. Lower numbered results include: help and documentation, aesthetic and minimalist design, error prevention, helping users recognize, diagnosis, recover from errors, and flexibility and efficiency of use.

Conclusion

This study led to the authors to consider developing a “better, user-centered interface” where eNote can be improved to better suite physicians’ needs for clinical notes.

Comments

This is an interesting study because it is a small study that only considers five subjects and the usability of eNotes. However, it does make some important questions about how clinical notes in eNotes can be more user friendly and more useful.

References

Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no content must have a name
Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found