|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | This is a review for Sookyung Hyun, RN, DNS, Stephen B. Johnson, PhD, Peter D. Stetson, MD, MA, and Suzanne Bakken, RN, DNS's article from the Journal of Biomedical Informatics Dec 2009 edition entitled ''Creating Development and evaluation of nursing user interface screens using multiple methods''.<ref name="Hyun et al. 2009">Hyun, S., Johnson, S. B., Stetson, P. D., & Bakken, S. (2009). Development and Evaluation of Nursing User Interface Screens Using Multiple Methods. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 42(6), 1004–1012. doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2009.05.005</ref>
| + | #REDIRECT[[Development and evaluation of nursing user interface screens using multiple methods]] |
| − | == Introduction ==
| + | |
| − | The research team at Columbia University included Sookyung Hyun, RN, DNS, Stephen B. Johnson, PhD, Peter D. Stetson, MD, MA, and Suzanne Bakken, RN, DNS. Hyun et al. developed the Structured Narrative Electronic Health Record (EHR) model. Aimed at using narrative data to enrich EHRs, the model integrates structured data and free text data (narratives) into a single gross structure. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | According to the article, eNote was the parent program. The model includes a clinical document database, document ontology, natural language processing (NLP), and inference engine. The research team applied theory-based (Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and Task-Technology Fit (TTF) Model) and user-centered methods. Nurses’ perceptions were used extensively. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | == Context of the Study ==
| + | |
| − | Formal semantic structures encompass structured data entry and narrative text in the hybrid model that is the Structured Narrative EHR model. Formal semantic structure and NLP extraction of data documented as free text was a primary goal. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | Structured Narrative EHR model has four major functional components: Import, Authoring, Browsing and Export. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | == Theoretical Framework ==
| + | |
| − | The theoretical foundation for the study is the combined model of TAM and TTF. The TAM hypothesizes that two beliefs, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, are relevant to system acceptance behaviors. The TTF model addresses the relationship between task, user acceptance, and utilization. The combined model for this study addresses technology beliefs and fitness of technology for task. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | == Match between Nursing Practice and Systems Designed to Support Nursing Practice ==
| + | |
| − | Consistent with the tenets of TTF, nursing Informaticians have long recognized the importance of the match between nursing practice and the systems designed to support it. Toward this goal, the criteria/requirements for nursing information systems have been studied for several decades and formalized by a number of investigators. Gassert, Lundgren and Wisser, Goossen et al., Hardiker and Bakken, Ireland et al. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | == Methods ==
| + | |
| − | Hyun et al. applied theory-based and user-centered methods to elicit nurses’ perceptions of functional requirements for an electronic nursing documentation system, design user interface screens reflective of the nurses’ perspectives, and assess nurses’ perceptions of the [[usability]] of the prototype user interface screens. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | === Elicitation of Requirements and Collaborative User Interface Design ===
| + | |
| − | Two nurses were domain experts. Two nursing Informaticians were usability experts. We conducted two sessions. One for brainstorming and a second for design of interface screens. Three user interface screens were designed. The Informaticians were the usability expert consultants for the registered nurses. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | === Implementation of User Interface ===
| + | |
| − | The prototyped user interface screens were rendered using Dreamweaver (a Web development tool). <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | === End-User Evaluation ===
| + | |
| − | Hyun et al., with the Institutional Review Board approval, commenced with the prototype user interface screens evaluation by a convenience sample of five nurses. All five had at least one month’s experience with Eclipys XA (EHR), according to Hyun et al. Clinical scenarios and related documentation tasks were performed in the usability laboratory. The nurses then completed study questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the nurses’ responses to the original Ease of Use (PEU), Usefulness (PPU), and TTF measures. Nurses’ responses to one optional open question were summarized. Total score ranges from 0 to 52. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | == Results ==
| + | |
| − | === Elicitation of Requirements and User Interface Design and Implementation ===
| + | |
| − | Five categories of functional requirements were identified in the brainstorming session: Information Display, Data Entry, Alerts/Reminders, Carry Forward Data, and Miscellaneous. The majority of requirements related to Information Display and Data Entry. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | === End-User Evaluation ===
| + | |
| − | All nurses responded either Agree or Strongly Agree for 28 of 30 items related to PEU, PPU, and TTF.
| + | |
| − | PEU scores: 4 - 32 (possible 0 to 32)
| + | |
| − | PPU scores from 24 to 32 (possible 0 to 36)
| + | |
| − | Nurses perceived the user interface screens as potentially useful and well-matched to nursing documentation tasks associated with admission assessment, blood trans-fusion, and patient discharge. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | ==Discussion==
| + | |
| − | Nursing perspectives and needs were considered when designing this documentation system and UI Screens. Hyun et al. contend that studies of this sort are necessary to help system designers meet the needs of nurses. This study confirms previous research. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | ==Conclusion==
| + | |
| − | Imperatives for EHR’s: well-matched to the users’ needs and mental models, take advantage of features such as those in the Structured Narrative EHR model, and are based upon data standards. <ref name=" Hyun et al. 2009"></ref>
| + | |
| − | ==Reviewer’s Comments==
| + | |
| − | === Jonzy’s Comments ===
| + | |
| − | This article is a bit dated but confirms sound guidelines for EHR UI design. With more studies of this sort, utilizing end-user input, a core of standard usability attributes may be developed. Thus, increasing patient safety, user confidence, and cost effectiveness.
| + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | <references/>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | [[Category:Usability]]
| + | |
| − | [[Category:Reviews]]
| + | |
