Variation in Electronic Health Record Workflow Patterns: A Multisite study

ACI open Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0040-1713102
Swaminathan Kandaswamy, Jiajun Wei, Amy Will, Erica L. Savage, R. Ratwani, A. Z. Hettinger, K. Miller
{"title":"Variation in Electronic Health Record Workflow Patterns: A Multisite study","authors":"Swaminathan Kandaswamy, Jiajun Wei, Amy Will, Erica L. Savage, R. Ratwani, A. Z. Hettinger, K. Miller","doi":"10.1055/s-0040-1713102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objectives Electronic health records (EHRs) continue to have significant usability challenges in part due to differences in workflow. The objective of this study was to examine workflow pattern variations for one specific task: emergency physicians placing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) order. Methods A between-subjects usability study was conducted using two different major EHR vendor products across four different provider sites (n = 55). A clinical scenario concerning for spinal cord compression was read to participants who then completed an ordering task using a training environment representative of their native EHR. The primary outcome measures were accuracy, time on task, and number of clicks. Results We identified four different workflows to complete the same order. One workflow required two steps (enabled at one site), one workflow required four steps (enabled at two sites), and two workflows required six steps to complete the task (available at all sites). Of the 12 physicians who employed the two-step workflow, 8 (67%) had the correct order and correct indication, the average time on task was 29.65 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.77), and the mean number of clicks was 13.5 (SD = 18.87). In contrast, for the 43 physicians who employed other workflows, 7 (21%) had the correct order and correct indication, with the average time on task of 73.1 (SD = 30.12) and mean clicks of 27.64 (SD = 13.25) (p < 0.01 for all three comparisons). Discussion These different approaches were made possible by technical specifications leading to multiple workflow options available to physicians in the EHR environment. EHR design maximizing usability can reduce the work effort and improve the accuracy of physician ordering.","PeriodicalId":72041,"journal":{"name":"ACI open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0040-1713102","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACI open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1713102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Electronic health records (EHRs) continue to have significant usability challenges in part due to differences in workflow. The objective of this study was to examine workflow pattern variations for one specific task: emergency physicians placing a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) order. Methods A between-subjects usability study was conducted using two different major EHR vendor products across four different provider sites (n = 55). A clinical scenario concerning for spinal cord compression was read to participants who then completed an ordering task using a training environment representative of their native EHR. The primary outcome measures were accuracy, time on task, and number of clicks. Results We identified four different workflows to complete the same order. One workflow required two steps (enabled at one site), one workflow required four steps (enabled at two sites), and two workflows required six steps to complete the task (available at all sites). Of the 12 physicians who employed the two-step workflow, 8 (67%) had the correct order and correct indication, the average time on task was 29.65 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.77), and the mean number of clicks was 13.5 (SD = 18.87). In contrast, for the 43 physicians who employed other workflows, 7 (21%) had the correct order and correct indication, with the average time on task of 73.1 (SD = 30.12) and mean clicks of 27.64 (SD = 13.25) (p < 0.01 for all three comparisons). Discussion These different approaches were made possible by technical specifications leading to multiple workflow options available to physicians in the EHR environment. EHR design maximizing usability can reduce the work effort and improve the accuracy of physician ordering.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子健康记录工作流程模式的变化:一项多地点研究
抽象目标 电子健康记录(EHR)仍然存在重大的可用性挑战,部分原因是工作流程的差异。本研究的目的是检查一项特定任务的工作流程模式变化:急诊医生下达磁共振成像(MRI)命令。方法 受试者之间的可用性研究是在四个不同的供应商网站上使用两种不同的主要EHR供应商产品进行的(n = 55)。向参与者阅读有关脊髓压迫的临床场景,然后参与者使用代表其本土EHR的训练环境完成排序任务。主要的结果衡量标准是准确性、完成任务的时间和点击次数。后果 我们确定了四个不同的工作流来完成同一订单。一个工作流需要两个步骤(在一个站点启用),一个工作流要求四个步骤(两个站点启用的),两个工作流需要六个步骤才能完成任务(在所有站点都可用)。在采用两步工作流程的12名医生中,8名(67%)有正确的医嘱和正确的适应症,平均完成任务的时间为29.65(标准差[SD] = 13.77),平均点击次数为13.5次(SD = 18.87)。相比之下,在采用其他工作流程的43名医生中,有7名(21%)具有正确的医嘱和正确的适应症,平均完成任务的时间为73.1(SD = 30.12)和27.64的平均点击量(SD = 13.25)(p < 所有三个比较均为0.01)。讨论 技术规范使这些不同的方法成为可能,从而为EHR环境中的医生提供了多种工作流程选项。EHR设计最大限度地提高可用性可以减少工作量并提高医生医嘱的准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Dealing with Diversity in Digital Psychological Interventions for Young People: A Structured Review Enhancing Secure Messaging in Electronic Health Records: Evaluating the Impact of Emoji Chat Reactions on the Volume of Interruptive Notifications Using Electronic Health Record Mortality Data to Promote Goals-of-Care Discussions in Seriously Ill Transferred Patients: A Pilot Study User-centered Design and Formative Evaluation of a Web Application to Collect and Visualize Real-time Clinician Well-being Levels Factors Influencing Health Care Professionals' Perceptions of Frequent Drug–Drug Interaction Alerts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1