Blecker Saul, Pandya Rishi, Stork Susan, Mann Devin, Kuperman Gilad, Shelley Donna, Austrian Jonathan S
Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
JMIR Hum Factors. 2019 Apr 17;6(2):e12469. doi: 10.2196/12469.
Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care, but its impact is often diminished because of issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Noninterruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue, but there has been little assessment of its usability.
This study aimed to study the usability of interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS.
We conducted a usability study of a CDS tool that recommended prescribing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor for inpatients with heart failure. We developed 2 versions of the CDS: an interruptive alert triggered at order entry and a noninterruptive alert listed in the sidebar of the electronic health record screen. Inpatient providers were recruited and randomly assigned to use the interruptive alert followed by the noninterruptive alert or vice versa in a laboratory setting. We asked providers to "think aloud" while using the CDS and then conducted a brief semistructured interview about usability. We used a constant comparative analysis informed by the CDS Five Rights framework to analyze usability testing.
A total of 12 providers participated in usability testing. Providers noted that the interruptive alert was readily noticed but generally impeded workflow. The noninterruptive alert was felt to be less annoying but had lower visibility, which might reduce engagement. Provider role seemed to influence preferences; for instance, some providers who had more global responsibility for patients seemed to prefer the noninterruptive alert, whereas more task-oriented providers generally preferred the interruptive alert.
Providers expressed trade-offs between impeding workflow and improving visibility with interruptive and noninterruptive versions of a CDS. In addition, 2 potential approaches to effective CDS may include targeting alerts by provider role or supplementing a noninterruptive alert with an occasional, well-timed interruptive alert.
临床决策支持(CDS)已被证明可提高循证医疗的依从性,但由于可用性差、工作流程整合不足和警报疲劳等问题,其影响往往会减弱。非干扰性CDS可能较少受到警报疲劳的影响,但对其可用性的评估却很少。
本研究旨在探讨CDS的干扰性和非干扰性版本的可用性。
我们对一种CDS工具进行了可用性研究,该工具建议为心力衰竭住院患者开具血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂。我们开发了2个CDS版本:一个在医嘱录入时触发的干扰性警报,以及一个列在电子健康记录屏幕侧边栏中的非干扰性警报。招募住院医疗服务提供者,并随机分配他们在实验室环境中先使用干扰性警报,然后使用非干扰性警报,或者反之亦然。我们要求医疗服务提供者在使用CDS时“边想边说”,然后就可用性进行一次简短的半结构化访谈。我们使用基于CDS五项权利框架的持续比较分析来分析可用性测试。
共有12名医疗服务提供者参与了可用性测试。医疗服务提供者指出,干扰性警报很容易被注意到,但通常会妨碍工作流程。非干扰性警报被认为不那么烦人,但可见性较低,这可能会降低参与度。医疗服务提供者的角色似乎会影响偏好;例如,一些对患者负有更多全面责任的医疗服务提供者似乎更喜欢非干扰性警报,而更注重任务的医疗服务提供者通常更喜欢干扰性警报。
医疗服务提供者表示,在CDS的干扰性和非干扰性版本中,工作流程受阻与可见性提高之间存在权衡。此外,有效的CDS的两种潜在方法可能包括根据医疗服务提供者的角色针对性地设置警报,或偶尔适时地用干扰性警报补充非干扰性警报。