Leveraging Dual Usability Methods to Evaluate Clinical Decision Support among Traumatic Brain Injury Patients (Preprint)

Author:

Rizvi Rubina F.ORCID,Faisal Sameen,Sussman Mark,Mendlick Patricia,Brown Sam,Lindemann Elizabeth,Keiser Jeremy,Kalra Manish,Switzer Sean,Melton-Meaux Genevieve B.,Tignanelli Christopher J.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury patients (TBI) are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may improve the utilization of VTE prophylaxis protocols yet suffer from poor compliance among end-users due to a lack of user-centered design.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this research work was to improve the content, design, and workflow integration of a TBI-CDSS based on feedback from the experts and end-users.

METHODS

The CDSS was evaluated leveraging a dual usability approach. A set of usability experts (N=3) and trauma providers (N=5) performed the heuristic evaluation (HE) and end-user testing (E-UT). Data was collected through triangulation of methods and analyzed using qualitative (thematic) and quantitative (descriptive) analyses.

RESULTS

We identified 145 total issues across both methods with 66 being unique i.e., 17 issues found by HE, 43 by E-UT, and 6 common ones. Thematic analysis was conducted on the unique issues (66) and was assigned to themes and subsequent sub-themes. We identified 13 unique themes. The three most identified themes were lack of supporting evidence (17 issues, representing 26% of the 66 issues), operational barriers arising from the test environment (11,17%), formatting inconsistencies, and lack of following standards (8, 12 %). The system's usability scale survey (SUS) score was 77.5 (std dev ±16) interpreted as an acceptable/good usability range.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining expert and end-user-driven usability evaluation methods led to the identification of a more comprehensive list of issues. This can facilitate the optimization of the TBI-CDSS, resulting in improved usability and care management.

CLINICALTRIAL

This component of the project is not a clinical trial. The study protocol was submitted to the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board and given the determination of “Exempt” as secondary research for which consent is not required. The mixed methods investigation was given the determination of “Not Human Research” as a quality improvement activity.

Publisher

JMIR Publications Inc.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3