Author:
Hartmann Eva Maria,Küper Alisa,Swoboda Jessica,Lodde Georg Christian,Livingstone Elisabeth,Beckmann Catharina Lena,Schadendorf Dirk,Sachweh Sabine
Abstract
AbstractFor 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.
Funder
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Universität Duisburg-Essen
Fachhochschule Dortmund
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference50 articles.
1. European Commission, RAND Europe, Open Evidence, BDI Research. Benchmarking Deployment of eHealth Among General Practitioners: Final Report (Publications Office, 2018).
2. 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).
3. Nielsen Norman Group. Medical Usability: How to Kill Patients Through Bad Design. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/medical-usability/ (Accessed 7 December 2023).
4. 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).
5. 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).