Primary and
hospital care
A survey-based cross-sectional study at a Swiss tertiary care hospital

What clinicians want from healthcare information systems: A survey-based cross-sectional study at a Swiss tertiary care hospital

Extended abstract
Jan Sidler
Autres auteurs
Marc Strasser, Stefano Bassetti, Balthasar Hug
Édition
2016/00
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4414/smi.32.00352
Affiliations
a Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland; b Department of Informatics, University Hospital Basel, Switzerland

Publié le 21.10.2016

Introduction

As clinicians spend a substantial amount of working time handling electronic clinical data, hospital information systems (HISs) should be user-centred to optimally support patient care and workflow [1, 2]. However, little is known about the key demands of clinicians in regard to HISs.
The evaluation of HISs is of great importance as implementation of an HIS can increase the rate of medical errors [3–10] and as software interfaces should specifically meet the end-users’ needs (i.e., usability) [11] to improve productivity, enhance user well-being, avoid stress, increase accessibility and reduce risk of harm [12, 13]. Usability has been defined in an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard as “the extent to which a system can be used by specific users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specific context of use” [12, 13]. Others proposed a more specific usability definition of an HIS, which is based on three dimensions: (i) “compatibility between HIS and clinicians’ task”; (ii) “HIS support for information exchange, communication and collaboration in clinical work”; and (iii) “interoperability and reliability” [14].
There are several psychological methods to evaluate usability when developing software systems, such as the heuristic evaluation, the cognitive walkthrough and the think aloud methods [15]. In addition, there are a number of validated questionnaires that measure endusers’ perception of usability of software systems (e.g., System Usability Scale [SUS], Questionnaire for User Interface Satisfaction [QUIS], Health-IT Usability Evaluation Scale [Health-ITUES]) [16, 17]. Studies have used these instruments to evaluate the usability of specific HISs and clinical decision support systems [15, 16, 18–20]. But despite the fact that most software developers pay attention to the usability of HISs [21], clinicians have common needs, which most HISs have not yet fully met [22].
In the process of improving our HIS we aimed to describe important characteristics of user-friendly HIS from a clinician’s perspective.

Methods

We performed a survey-based cross-sectional study by consecutively e-mailing two anonymised web-based surveys to all clinicians working at the Department of Internal Medicine of the University Hospital Basel (USB) – a tertiary referral centre in Northwestern Switzerland with 712 beds, and treating around 34 000 hospitalised patients and about 180 000 outpatients per year. As part of an internal quality evaluation, clinicians had one week to respond to each of these surveys (for details see supplements). The first and second surveys were sent on the 5th and 23rd November 2015, respectively. Each survey took only one to two minutes per person to complete.
Clinicians at the USB work with two main HISs, ISMed© (Protect Data AG, Boswil, Switzerland) and Meona (Meona GmbH, Freiburg, Germany), including multiple subsystems for specific purposes (e.g., a pathology information system, picture archiving and a communication system). The surveys did not focus on a specific HIS. We created the survey questions and hierarchy based on the pooled written feed-back of clinicians at the Department of Internal Medicine concerning the usability of HISs in general to cover optimally their demands in daily clinical work. In the first survey, clinicians were asked to state their single most important characteristic of a user-friendly/user-unfriendly HIS; the predefined selectable characteristics were an “easy-/difficult-to-use interface”, a “simple/complex visual design”, a “short/long response time”, “good/poor data quality” and “rapid/slow retrieval of relevant clinical data”. In the second survey, clinicians were asked to further divide the most frequently mentioned characteristic of a user-friendly HIS from the first survey into relevant subcategories (multiple answers possible). The predefined selectable subcategories were the “availability of strong search tools”, a “simple software architecture”, the “presence of only few interface layers”, an “automatic alerting system”, an “overview of important clinical data in one window” and “prioritisation of data within the HIS”. Of note, free boxes and text fields allowed the clinicians to easily make comments and add further characteristics/subcategories in both surveys. Clinicians were not forced to answer specific survey questions in order to increase the participation rate.
No formal ethical approval was necessary for this study as it was part of internal quality improvement measures based on anonymised data.

Results

The response rates for the first and second survey were 48.2% (40/83 clinicians) and 39.8% (33/83), respectively. The main characteristics of clinicians responding to the first survey are presented in table 1. In the first survey, the most frequently mentioned characteristics of a user-friendly HIS (table 2) were “rapid retrieval of relevant clinical data” in 47.5% (19/40), an “easy-to-use interface” in 15.0% (6/40) and a “simple visual design” in 15.0% (6/40). The basic characteristics of a user-unfriendly HIS are presented in table 3. There were no free-text responses in the first survey in regard to HISs in general.
In the second survey, clinicians divided the most frequently mentioned characteristic of a user-friendly HIS, “rapid retrieval of relevant clinical data”, into several subcategories including one free text response, which was “ability to maximise text windows” (table 4).
Table 1: Main characteristics of clinicians responding to the first survey.
CharacteristicsNumber of clinicians (%)Total n = 40
Age group 
20–29 years10 (25.0)
30–39 years23 (57.5)
>39 years7 (17.5)
Gender 
Female 18 (45.0)
Male22 (55.0)
Function 
Resident28 (70.0)
Board-certified specialist9 (22.5)
Senior board-certified specialist3 (7.5)
Table 2: Main characteristics of user-friendly hospital information systems.
CharacteristicsNumber of clinicians (%)Total n = 40
Rapid retrieval of relevant clinical data19 (47.5)
Easy-to-use interface6 (15.0)
Simple visual design6 (15.0)
Short response time3 (7.5)
Good data quality1 (2.5)
Other 0 (0)
Missing answer5 (12.5)
Table 3: Main characteristics of user-unfriendly hospital information systems.
CharacteristicsNumber of clinicians (%)Total n = 40
Slow retrieval of relevant clinical data24 (60.0)
Difficult-to-use interface5 (12.5)
Complex visual design6 (15.0)
Long response time3 (7.5)
Poor data quality0 (0)
Other 0 (0)
Missing answer2 (5.0)
Table 4: Rapid retrieval of relevant clinical data: subcategories.
SubcategoriesNumber of clinicians (%)Total N = 33
Simple software architecture32 (97.0)
Strong search tools31 (93.9)
Presence of only few interface layers24 (72.7)
Automatic alerting system21 (63.6)
Overview of important clinical data in one window18 (54.5)
Prioritization of data 9 (27.3)
Ability to maximise text windows1 (3.0)
Other0 (0)
Missing answer0 (0)
Clinicians were asked to further divide the most frequently mentioned characteristic of user-friendly hospital information systems into relevant subcategories (multiple answers possible). The question was: What do you need for rapid retrieval of clinical data in hospital information systems (multiple answers possible)?

Discussion

With this cross-sectional survey we describe important characteristics of a user-friendly HIS from an end-user’s perspective. Our findings suggest that a simple and easy-to-use (i.e., intuitive or learnable) HIS interface is of major importance to clinicians with the ultimate goal of rapidly finding relevant patient data. Furthermore, an intuitive HIS may markedly reduce the expense of training new staff.
The absence of good user interfaces has been long recognised as a major barrier to the acceptance of HISs [23]. Unfortunately, only few studies analysed the key factors for building usable and intuitive HIS interfaces [24]. Considering the fact that the best predictor of clinicians’ satisfaction with an HIS is the perceived usefulness of the system [25], more studies should focus on the end-users’ needs. A Finnish cross-sectional study in 3929 clinicians actively working in patient care has shown that end-users of different HISs suffer from poor usability in mainly two usability dimensions: (i) compatibility between the HIS and clinicians’ tasks and (ii) HIS support for information exchange, communication and collaboration in clinical work [14]. In contrast to our study, the Finnish survey was a nationwide evaluation of different HISs that was not designed to define the most important characteristics of a user-friendly HIS.
Various studies assessed the usability of HISs with a focus on mostly technical aspects (e.g., processing speed, system reliability), but did not specifically address the needs of clinicians [15, 16, 18–20]. In line with the results of our study, user satisfaction with HISs has been shown to be highly correlated with screen design and layout, and not primarily with most of the technical aspects of HISs (e.g., system speed) [26]. In contrast to these observations, the speed of an HIS has been repeatedly shown to be one of the most important qualities for end-users [27].
Our study has several strengths. First, it was performed in a population consisting of clinicians who work with various HISs on a daily basis. Second, it is one of the first studies that described important characteristics of a user-friendly HIS from an end-user’s perspective. Nonetheless, our study has limitations. First, our survey may be not representative as it included a relatively small population from a single centre and as only clinicians from the Department of Internal Medicine were approached. Second, the surveys we used had not been validated and their characteristics had not been clearly defined in advance. Third, we partly selected predefined questions, which could have biased the results of our survey. Fourth, the response rate was relatively low with less than 50%.
In conclusion, the clinicians’ top priority in regard to an HIS was to quickly find relevant patient information. Developers of HISs should particularly focus on creating intuitive interfaces with efficient search engines and clear visualisation of clinical data.
Correspondence:

PD Dr Balthasar L. Hug, MBA, MPH
Chief Medical Information Officer
Department of Internal Medicine
University Hospital Basel
Petersgraben 4
4031 Basel
Switzerland
b.hug[at]unibas.ch
1 Tipping MD, Forth VE, Magill DB, Magill DB, Englert K, Williams MV. Systematic review of time studies evaluating physicians in the hospital setting. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):353–9.
2 Füchtbauer LM, Nørgaard B, Mogensen CB. Emergency department physicians spend only 25% of their working time on direct patient care. Dan Med J. 2013;60(1):A4558.
3 Wyatt JC, Wyatt SM. When and how to evaluate health information systems? Int J Med Inform. 2003;69(2–3):251–9.
4 Peute LW, Jaspers MW. The significance of a usability evaluation of an emerging laboratory order entry system. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(2–3):157–68.
5 Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(5):547–56.
6 Horsky J, Kuperman GJ, Patel VL. Comprehensive Analysis of a Medication Dosing Error Related to CPOE. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):377–82.
7 Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System-related Errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;11(2):104–12.
8 Kushniruk AW, Triola MM, Borycki EM, Stein B, Kannry JL. Technology induced error and usability: the relationship between usability problems and prescription errors when using a handheld application. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(7–8): 519–26.
9 Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST , Clark RS, Watson RS, Nguyen TC, et al. Unexpected Increased Mortality After Implementation of a Commercially Sold Computerized Physician Order Entry System. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1506–12.
10 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, Abaluck B, Localio AR, Kimmel SE, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197–203.
11 Bates DW, Cohen M, Leape LL, Overhage JM, Shabot MM, Sheridan Tl. Reducing the Frequency of Errors in Medicine Using Information Technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(4):299–308.
12 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 9241–210, International Standard: Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction – Part 210: Human-Centered Design for Interactive Systems, 1st Edition, Reference number ISO 9241–210:2010(E). Geneva, 2010.
13 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 9241–11, International Standard: ISO 9241 Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals, Part 11: Guidance on Usability. Geneva, 1996.
14 Viitanen J, Hyppönen H, Lääveri T, Vänskä J, Reponen J, Winblad I. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: physicians suffer from poor usability. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(10):708–25.
15 Yen PY, Bakken S. Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(3):413–22.
16 Dorr D, Bonner LM, Cohen AN, Shoai RS, Perrin R, Chaney E, et al. Informatics systems to promote improved care for chronic illness: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(2):156–63.
17 Yen PY, Sousa KH, Bakken S. Examining construct and predictive validity of the Health-IT Usability Evaluation Scale: confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling results. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(e2):e241–8.
18 Lau F, Kuziemsky C, Price M, Gardner J. A review on systematic reviews of health information system studies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(6):637–45.
19 Murff HJ, Kannry J. Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(5):499–509.
20 Ammenwerth E, Gräber S, Herrmann G, Bürkle T, König J. Evaluation of health information systems-problems and challenges. Int J Med Inform. 2003;71(2–3):125–35.
21 Ratwani RM, Benda NC, Hettinger AZ, Fairbanks RJ. Electronic Health Record Vendor Adherence to Usability Certification Requirements and Testing Standards. JAMA. 2015;314(10):1070–1.
22 American College of Physicians. Survey of clinicians: user satisfaction with electronic health records has decreased since 2010. Available at: http://www.acponline.org/newsroom/ehrs_survey.htm?hp. Accessed November 17, 2015.
23 Johnson CM, Johnson TR, Zhang J. A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38(1):75–87.
24 Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson MP. User interface optimization for an electronic medical record system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):1058–62.
25 Palm JM, Grant A, Moutquin JM, Degoulet P. Determinants of clinical information system post-adoption success. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(Pt 1):213–7.
26 Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. Proc AMIA Symp. 1999 : 400–4.
27 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, Gandhi T, Kittler A, Volk L, et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):523–30.

Publié sous la licence du droit d'auteur.

"Attribution - Non-Commercial - NoDerivatives 4.0"

Pas de réutilisation commerciale sans autorisation..

See: emh.ch/en/emh/rights-and-licences/

 

 

Avec la fonction commentaires, nous proposons un espace pour un échange professionnel ouvert et critique. Celui-ci est ouvert à tous les abonné-e-s SHW Beta. Nous publions les commentaires tant qu’ils respectent nos lignes directrices.

Haut de page