An appraisal of published usability evaluations of electronic health records via systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ellsworth MA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7654077 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
An appraisal of published usability evaluations of electronic health records via systematic review.
Ellsworth Marc A MA Dziadzko Mikhail M O'Horo John C JC Farrell Ann M AM Zhang Jiajie J Herasevich Vitaly V
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20160423 1
<h4>Objective</h4>In this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate methodological and reporting trends present in the current literature by investigating published usability studies of electronic health records (EHRs).<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search was conducted for articles published through January 2015 using MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science, supplemented by citation and reference list reviews. Studies were included if they tested the usability of hospital and clinic EHR ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAs the availability of interoperable electronic health records (iEHRs) or health information exchanges (HIEs) continues to increase, there is greater need and opportunity to assess the current evidence base on what works and what does not regarding the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.ObjectiveThe purpose of this project is to assess the international evidence base on the adoption, use, and impact of iEHRs.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching multiple databases-MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)-with supplemental searches conducted in Google Scholar and grey literature sources (ie, Google, Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey). All searches were conducted in January and February 2017. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, were published from 2006 to 2017, and were either an original research study or a literature review. In order to be included, articles needed to focus on iEHRs and HIEs across multiple health care settings, as well as on the impact and effectiveness of iEHR adoption and use.ResultsWe included 130 articles in the synthesis (113 primary studies, 86.9%; 17 reviews, 13.1%), with the majority focused on the United States (88/130, 67.7%). The primary studies focused on a wide range of health care settings; the three most prevalent settings studied included acute care (59/113, 52.2%), primary care (44/113, 38.9%), and emergency departments (34/113, 30.1%). We identified 29 distinct measurement items in the 113 primary studies that were linked to 522 specific measurement outcomes. Productivity and quality were the two evaluation dimensions that received the most attention, accounting for 14 of 29 (48%) measurement items and 306 of 522 (58.6%) measurement outcomes identified. Overall, the majority of the 522 measurement outcomes were positive (298/522, 57.1%). We also identified 17 reviews on iEHR use and impact, 6 (35%) that focused on barriers and facilitators to adoption and implementation and 11 (65%) that focused on benefits and impacts, with the more recent reviews finding little generalizable evidence of benefit and impact.ConclusionsThis review captures the status of an evolving and active field focused on the use and impact of iEHRs. While the overall findings suggest many positive impacts, the quality of the primary studies were not evaluated systematically. When broken down by specific measurement item, the results directed attention both to measurement outcomes that were consistently positive and others that were mostly negative or equivocal.
| S-EPMC6592487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe amount of time that health care clinicians (physicians and nurses) spend interacting with the electronic health record is not well understood.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the time that health care providers spend interacting with electronic health records (EHR).MethodsData are retrieved from Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, (Ovid) Embase, CINAHL, and SCOPUS.Study eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed studies that describe the use of EHR and include measurement of time either in hours, minutes, or in the percentage of a clinician's workday. Papers were written in English and published between 1990 and 2021.ParticipantsAll physicians and nurses involved in inpatient and outpatient settings.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsA narrative synthesis of the results, providing summaries of interaction time with EHR. The studies were rated according to Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs.ResultsOut of 5,133 de-duplicated references identified through database searching, 18 met inclusion criteria. Most were time-motion studies (50%) that followed by logged-based analysis (44%). Most were conducted in the United States (94%) and examined a clinician workflow in the inpatient settings (83%). The average time was nearly 37% of time of their workday by physicians in both inpatient and outpatient settings and 22% of the workday by nurses in inpatient settings. The studies showed methodological heterogeneity.ConclusionThis systematic review evaluates the time that health care providers spend interacting with EHR. Interaction time with EHR varies depending on clinicians' roles and clinical settings, computer systems, and users' experience. The average time spent by physicians on EHR exceeded one-third of their workday. The finding is a possible indicator that the EHR has room for usability, functionality improvement, and workflow optimization.
| S-EPMC8387128 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Long-term care (LTC) facilities are an important part of the health care industry, providing care to the fastest-growing group of the population. However, the adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) in LTC facilities lags behind other areas of the health care industry. One of the reasons for the lack of widespread adoption in the United States is that LTC facilities are not eligible for incentives under the Meaningful Use program. Implementation of an EHR system in an LTC facility can potentially enhance the quality of care, provided it is appropriately implemented, used, and maintained. Unfortunately, the lag in adoption of the EHR in LTC creates a paucity of literature on the benefits of EHR implementation in LTC facilities.The objective of this systematic review was to identify the potential benefits of implementing an EHR system in LTC facilities. The study also aims to identify the common conditions and EHR features that received favorable remarks from providers and the discrepancies that needed improvement to build up momentum across LTC settings in adopting this technology.The authors conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), and MEDLINE databases. Papers were analyzed by multiple referees to filter out studies not germane to our research objective. A final sample of 28 papers was selected to be included in the systematic review.Results of this systematic review conclude that EHRs show significant improvement in the management of documentation in LTC facilities and enhanced quality outcomes. Approximately 43% (12/28) of the papers reported a mixed impact of EHRs on the management of documentation, and 33% (9/28) of papers reported positive quality outcomes using EHRs. Surprisingly, very few papers demonstrated an impact on patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, the length of stay, and productivity using EHRs.Overall, implementation of EHRs has been found to be effective in the few LTC facilities that have implemented them. Implementation of EHRs in LTC facilities caused improved management of clinical documentation that enabled better decision making.
| S-EPMC5640822 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Poor EHR design adds further challenges, especially in the areas of order entry and information visualization, with a net effect of increased rates of incidents, accidents, and mortality in ICU settings. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to propose a novel, mixed-methods framework to understand EHR-related information overload by identifying and characterizing areas of suboptimal usability and clinician frustration within a vendor-based, provider-facing EHR interface. METHODS:A mixed-methods, live observational usability study was conducted at a single, large, tertiary academic medical center in the Southeastern US utilizing a commercial, vendor based EHR. Physicians were asked to complete usability patient cases, provide responses to three surveys, and participant in a semi-structured interview. RESULTS:Of the 25 enrolled ICU physician participants, there were 5(20%) attending physicians, 9 (36%) fellows, and 11 (44%) residents; 52% of participants were females. On average, residents were the quickest in completing the tasks while attending physician took the longest to complete the same task. Poor usability, complex interface screens, and difficulty to navigate the EHR significantly correlated with high frustration levels. Significant association were found between the occurrence of error messages and temporal demand such that more error messages resulted in longer completion time (p?=?.03). DISCUSSION:Physicians remain frustrated with the EHR due to difficulty in finding patient information. EHR usability remains a critical challenge in healthcare, with implications for medical errors, patient safety, and clinician burnout. There is a need for scientific findings on current information needs and ways to improve EHR-related information overload.
| S-EPMC6584062 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies published in non-English languages are systematically missing in systematic reviews of growth and quality of economic evaluations of health care. The aims of this study were: to characterize German evaluations, published in English or German-language, in terms of various key parameters; to investigate methods to derive quality-of-life weights in cost-utility studies; and to examine changes in study characteristics over the years.MethodsWe conducted a country-specific systematic review of the German and English-language literature of German economic evaluations (assessment of or application to the German health care system) published 1990-2004. Generic and specialized health economic databases were searched. Two independent reviewers verified fulfillment of inclusion criteria and extracted study characteristics.ResultsThe fulltexts of 730 articles were reviewed of which 283 fulfilled all entry criteria. 32% of included studies were published in German-language. 51% of studies evaluated pharmaceuticals and 63% were cost-effectiveness analyses. Economic appraisals concentrate on few disease categories and important health areas are strongly underrepresented. Declaration of sponsorship was associated with article language (49% English articles vs. 29% German articles, p < 0.001). The methodology used to obtain quality-of-life weights in published cost-utility studies was very diverse, poorly reported and most studies did not use German patients' or community health state evaluations.ConclusionMany of the German-language evaluations included in our study are likely to be missing in international reviews and may be systematically different from English-language reviews from Germany. Lack of transparency and adherence to recommended reporting practices constitute a serious problem in German economic evaluations.
| S-EPMC1781069 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivePeople with long-term conditions require serial clinical assessments. Digital patient-reported symptoms collected between visits can inform these, especially if integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical workflows. This systematic review identified and summarized EHR-integrated systems to remotely collect patient-reported symptoms and examined their anticipated and realized benefits in long-term conditions.Materials and methodsWe searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were symptom reporting systems in adults with long-term conditions; data integrated into the EHR; data collection outside of clinic; data used in clinical care. We synthesized data thematically. Benefits were assessed against a list of outcome indicators. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsWe included 12 studies representing 10 systems. Seven were in oncology. Systems were technically and functionally heterogeneous, with the majority being fully integrated (data viewable in the EHR). Half of the systems enabled regular symptom tracking between visits. We identified 3 symptom report-guided clinical workflows: Consultation-only (data used during consultation, n = 5), alert-based (real-time alerts for providers, n = 4) and patient-initiated visits (n = 1). Few author-described anticipated benefits, primarily to improve communication and resultant health outcomes, were realized based on the study results, and were only supported by evidence from early-stage qualitative studies. Studies were primarily feasibility and pilot studies of acceptable quality.Discussion and conclusionsEHR-integrated remote symptom monitoring is possible, but there are few published efforts to inform development of these systems. Currently there is limited evidence that this improves care and outcomes, warranting future robust, quantitative studies of efficacy and effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7671621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveInfobuttons appear as small icons adjacent to electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., medications, diagnoses, or test results) that, when clicked, access online knowledge resources tailored to the patient, care setting, or task. Infobuttons are required for "Meaningful Use" certification of US EHRs. We sought to evaluate infobuttons' impact on clinical practice and identify features associated with improved outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases from inception to July 6, 2015. We included and cataloged all original research in any language describing implementation of infobuttons or other context-sensitive links. Studies evaluating clinical implementations with outcomes of usage or impact were reviewed in greater detail. Reviewers worked in duplicate to select articles, evaluate quality, and abstract information.ResultsOf 599 potential articles, 77 described infobutton implementation. The 17 studies meriting detailed review, including 3 randomized trials, yielded the following findings. Infobutton usage frequency ranged from 0.3 to 7.4 uses per month per potential user. Usage appeared to be influenced by EHR task. Five studies found that infobuttons are used less often than non-context-sensitive links (proportionate usage 0.20-0.34). In 3 studies, users answered their clinical question in > 69% of infobutton sessions. Seven studies evaluated alternative approaches to infobutton design and implementation. No studies isolated the impact of infobuttons on objectively measured patient outcomes.ConclusionsWeak evidence suggests that infobuttons can help providers answer clinical questions. Research on optimal infobutton design and implementation, and on the impact on patient outcomes and provider behaviors, is needed.
| S-EPMC6080678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Digitization of a health record changes its accessibility. An electronic health record (EHR) can be accessed by multiple authorized users. Health information from EHRs contributes to learning healthcare systems' development. The objective of this systematic review is to answer a question: What are ethical issues concerning research using EHRs in the literature? We searched Medline Ovid, Embase and Scopus for publications concerning ethical issues of research use of EHRs. We employed the constant comparative method to retrieve common ethical themes. We descriptively summarized empirical studies. The study reveals the breadth, depth, and complexity of ethical problems associated with research use of EHRs. The central ethical question that emerges from the review is how to manage access to EHRs. Managing accessibility consists of interconnected and overlapping issues: streamlining research access to EHRs, minimizing risk, engaging and educating patients, as well as ensuring trustworthy governance of EHR data. Most of the ethical problems concerning EHR-based research arise from rapid cultural change. The framing of concepts of privacy, as well as individual and public dimensions of beneficence, are changing. We are currently living in the middle of this transition period. Human emotions and mental habits, as well as laws, are lagging behind technological developments. In the medical tradition, individual patient's health has always been in the center. Transformation of healthcare care, its digitalization, seems to have some impacts on our perspective of health care ethics, research ethics and public health ethics.
| S-EPMC8214390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic Health Records (EHRs) can help clinicians to plan, document and deliver care for patients in healthcare services. When used consistently, EHRs can advance patient safety and quality, and reduce clinician's workload. However, usability problems can make it difficult for clinicians to use EHRs effectively, which can negatively impact both healthcare professionals and patients.ObjectiveTo improve usability of EHRs within a mental health service in the UK.MethodsThis was a feasibility study conducted with two mental health teams. A mixed-methods approach was employed. Focus group discussions with clinicians identified existing usability problems in EHRs and changes were made to address these problems. Updated EHR assessment forms were evaluated by comparing the following measures pre and post changes: (1) usability testing to monitor time spent completing and duplicating patient information in EHRs, (2) clinician's experience of using EHRs, and (3) proportion of completed EHR assessment forms.ResultsUsability testing with clinicians (n = 3) showed that the time taken to complete EHR assessment forms and time spent duplicating patient information decreased. Clinician's experience of completing EHR assessment forms also significantly improved post changes compared to baseline (n = 71; p < 0.005). There was a significant increase in completion of most EHR forms by both teams after EHR usability improvements (all at p < 0.01).ConclusionsUsability improvements to EHRs can reduce the time taken to complete forms, advance clinician's experience and increase usage of EHRs. It is important to engage healthcare professionals in the usability improvement process of EHRs in mental health services.
| S-EPMC9177469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To characterize the variability in usability and safety of EHRs from two vendors across four healthcare systems (2 Epic and 2 Cerner). Twelve to 15 emergency medicine physicians participated from each site and completed six clinical scenarios. Keystroke, mouse click, and video data were collected. From the six scenarios, two diagnostic imaging, laboratory, and medication tasks were analyzed. There was wide variability in task completion time, clicks, and error rates. For certain tasks, there were an average of a nine-fold difference in time and eight-fold difference in clicks. Error rates varied by task (X-ray 16.7% to 25%, MRI: 0 to 10%, Lactate: 0% to 14.3%, Tylenol: 0 to 30%; Taper: 16.7% to 50%). The variability in time, clicks, and error rates highlights the need for improved implementation optimization. EHR implementation, in addition to vendor design and development, is critical to usable and safe products.
| S-EPMC7646875 | biostudies-literature