Retrospective analysis of the human-centered design process used to develop a clinical decision support in the emergency department: PE Dx Study Part 2

IF 1.6
Megan E. Salwei , Peter L.T. Hoonakker , Michael Pulia , Douglas Wiegmann , Brian W. Patterson , Pascale Carayon
{"title":"Retrospective analysis of the human-centered design process used to develop a clinical decision support in the emergency department: PE Dx Study Part 2","authors":"Megan E. Salwei ,&nbsp;Peter L.T. Hoonakker ,&nbsp;Michael Pulia ,&nbsp;Douglas Wiegmann ,&nbsp;Brian W. Patterson ,&nbsp;Pascale Carayon","doi":"10.1016/j.hfh.2023.100055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>With the growing implementation and use of health IT such as Clinical Decision Support (CDS), there is increasing attention on the potential negative impact of these technologies on patients (e.g., medication errors) and clinicians (e.g., increased workload, decreased job satisfaction, burnout). Human-Centered Design (HCD) and Human Factors (HF) principles are recommended to improve the usability of health IT and reduce its negative impact on patients and clinicians; however, challenges persist. The objective of this study is to understand how an HCD process influences the usability of health IT. We conducted a systematic retrospective analysis of the HCD process used in the design of a CDS for pulmonary embolism diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Guided by the usability outcomes (e.g., barriers and facilitators) of the CDS use “in the wild” (see Part 1 of this research in the accompanying manuscript), we performed deductive content analysis of 17 documents (e.g., design session transcripts) produced during the HCD process. We describe if and how the design team considered the barriers and facilitators during the HCD process. We identified 7 design outcomes of the HCD process, for instance designing a workaround and making a design change to the CDS. We identify gaps in the current HCD process and demonstrate the need for a continuous health IT design process.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93564,"journal":{"name":"Human factors in healthcare","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100055"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human factors in healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772501423000222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

With the growing implementation and use of health IT such as Clinical Decision Support (CDS), there is increasing attention on the potential negative impact of these technologies on patients (e.g., medication errors) and clinicians (e.g., increased workload, decreased job satisfaction, burnout). Human-Centered Design (HCD) and Human Factors (HF) principles are recommended to improve the usability of health IT and reduce its negative impact on patients and clinicians; however, challenges persist. The objective of this study is to understand how an HCD process influences the usability of health IT. We conducted a systematic retrospective analysis of the HCD process used in the design of a CDS for pulmonary embolism diagnosis in the emergency department (ED). Guided by the usability outcomes (e.g., barriers and facilitators) of the CDS use “in the wild” (see Part 1 of this research in the accompanying manuscript), we performed deductive content analysis of 17 documents (e.g., design session transcripts) produced during the HCD process. We describe if and how the design team considered the barriers and facilitators during the HCD process. We identified 7 design outcomes of the HCD process, for instance designing a workaround and making a design change to the CDS. We identify gaps in the current HCD process and demonstrate the need for a continuous health IT design process.

回顾性分析以人为中心的设计过程,用于在急诊科开发临床决策支持:PE Dx研究第2部分
随着临床决策支持(CDS)等健康IT的日益实施和使用,人们越来越关注这些技术对患者(如用药错误)和临床医生(如工作量增加、工作满意度下降、倦怠)的潜在负面影响。建议以人为中心的设计(HCD)和人为因素(HF)原则来提高健康信息技术的可用性,并减少其对患者和临床医生的负面影响;然而,挑战依然存在。本研究的目的是了解HCD过程如何影响健康信息技术的可用性。我们对急诊科(ED)用于肺栓塞诊断的CDS设计中使用的HCD过程进行了系统回顾性分析。在CDS“野外”使用的可用性结果(如障碍和促进者)的指导下(见随附手稿中本研究的第1部分),我们对HCD过程中产生的17份文件(如设计会议记录)进行了演绎内容分析。我们描述了设计团队在HCD过程中是否以及如何考虑障碍和促进者。我们确定了HCD过程的7个设计结果,例如设计一个变通方法和对CDS进行设计更改。我们确定了当前HCD流程中的差距,并证明了持续健康IT设计流程的必要性。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Human factors in healthcare
Human factors in healthcare Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Occupational Therapy
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
145 days
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书