PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11(05): 700-709
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1716746
Research Article

User-Centered Clinical Display Design Issues for Inpatient Providers

Thomas A. Lasko 
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
,
David A. Owens
2   Owen Graduate School of Management, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
,
Daniel Fabbri
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
3   Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
,
Jonathan P. Wanderer
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
4   Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
,
Julian Z. Genkins
5   Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States
,
Laurie L. Novak
1   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding This work was funded by grant R01EB020666 from the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bio engineering.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Suboptimal information display in electronic health records (EHRs) is a notorious pain point for users. Designing an effective display is difficult, due in part to the complex and varied nature of clinical practice.

Objective This article aims to understand the goals, constraints, frustrations, and mental models of inpatient medical providers when accessing EHR data, to better inform the display of clinical information.

Methods A multidisciplinary ethnographic study of inpatient medical providers.

Results Our participants' primary goal was usually to assemble a clinical picture around a given question, under the constraints of time pressure and incomplete information. To do so, they tend to use a mental model of multiple layers of abstraction when thinking of patients and disease; they prefer immediate pattern recognition strategies for answering clinical questions, with breadth-first or depth-first search strategies used subsequently if needed; and they are sensitive to data relevance, completeness, and reliability when reading a record.

Conclusion These results conflict with the ubiquitous display design practice of separating data by type (test results, medications, notes, etc.), a mismatch that is known to encumber efficient mental processing by increasing both navigation burden and memory demands on users. A popular and obvious solution is to select or filter the data to display exactly what is presumed to be relevant to the clinical question, but this solution is both brittle and mistrusted by users. A less brittle approach that is more aligned with our users' mental model could use abstraction to summarize details instead of filtering to hide data. An abstraction-based approach could allow clinicians to more easily assemble a clinical picture, to use immediate pattern recognition strategies, and to adjust the level of displayed detail to their particular needs. It could also help the user notice unanticipated patterns and to fluidly shift attention as understanding evolves.

Keywords

electronic health records - data display - visualization - abstraction - information overload - clinician burnout

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The research project and protocol were approved by the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 08. Juni 2020

Angenommen: 12. August 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
21. Oktober 2020

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Weed LL. Medical records that guide and teach. N Engl J Med 1968; 278 (11) 593-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 West VL, Borland D, Hammond WE. Innovative information visualization of electronic health record data: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (02) 330-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wanderer JP, Nelson SE, Ehrenfeld JM, Monahan S, Park S. Clinical data visualization: the current state and future needs. J Med Syst 2016; 40 (12) 275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Feblowitz JC, Wright A, Singh H, Samal L, Sittig DF. Summarization of clinical information: a conceptual model. J Biomed Inform 2011; 44 (04) 688-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Waller RG, Wright MC, Segall N. et al. Novel displays of patient information in critical care settings: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (05) 479-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rind A, Wang TD, Aigner W. et al. Interactive information visualization to explore and query electronic health records. Found Trends Hum-Comput Interact 2013; 5 (03) 207-298
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wright MC, Borbolla D, Waller RG. et al. Critical care information display approaches and design frameworks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Biomed Inform X 2019; 3: 3
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Plaisant C, Mushlin R, Snyder A, Li J, Heller D, Shneiderman B. LifeLines: using visualization to enhance navigation and analysis of patient records. Proc AMIA Symp 1998; 76-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Powsner SM, Tufte ER. Graphical summary of patient status. Lancet 1994; 344 (8919): 386-389
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Jensen LG, Bossen C. Factors affecting physicians' use of a dedicated overview interface in an electronic health record: the importance of standard information and standard documentation. Int J Med Inform 2016; 87: 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sultanum N, Brudno M, Wigdor D, Chevalier F. More Text Please! Understanding and Supporting the Use of Visualization for Clinical Text Overview. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '18. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2018: 422:1-422:13
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Zahabi M, Kaber DB, Swangnetr M. Usability and safety in electronic medical records interface design: a review of recent literature and guideline formulation. Hum Factors 2015; 57 (05) 805-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S. et al. Association of electronic health record design and use factors with clinician stress and burnout. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2 (08) e199609
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Shanafelt TD, Dyrbye LN, Sinsky C. et al. Relationship between clerical burden and characteristics of the electronic environment with physician burnout and professional satisfaction. Mayo Clin Proc 2016; 91 (07) 836-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kunzman K. Why are EMRs So Terrible?. 2018 . MD Magazine 2018, Feb 19. Accessed September 7, 2018 at: https://www.mdmag.com/medical-news/why-are-emrs-so-terrible
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Drummond D. Eight ways to lower practice stress and get home sooner. Fam Pract Manag 2015; 22 (06) 13-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. PThe impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12 (05) 505-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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 2004; 11 (02) 104-112
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Horsky J, Zhang J, Patel VL. To err is not entirely human: complex technology and user cognition. J Biomed Inform 2005; 38 (04) 264-266
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A. et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293 (10) 1197-1203
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Christensen T, Grimsmo A. Instant availability of patient records, but diminished availability of patient information: a multi-method study of GP's use of electronic patient records. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008; 8: 12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ratwani RM, Benda NC, Hettinger AZ, Fairbanks RJ. Electronic health record vendor adherence to usability certification requirements and testing standards. JAMA 2015; 314 (10) 1070-1071
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hsu W, Taira RK, El-Saden S, Kangarloo H, Bui AAT. Context-based electronic health record: toward patient specific healthcare. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed 2012; 16 (02) 228-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Arndt BG, Beasley JW, Watkinson MD. et al. Tethered to the EHR: primary care physician workload assessment using EHR event log data and time-motion observations. Ann Fam Med 2017; 15 (05) 419-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Payne TH, Corley S, Cullen TA. et al. Report of the AMIA EHR-2020 Task Force on the status and future direction of EHRs. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22 (05) 1102-1110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Thyvalikakath TP, Dziabiak MP, Johnson R. et al. Advancing cognitive engineering methods to support user interface design for electronic health records. Int J Med Inform 2014; 83 (04) 292-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wright MC, Dunbar S, Macpherson BC. et al. Toward designing information display to support critical care. A qualitative contextual evaluation and visioning effort. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (04) 912-929
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Dowding D, Merrill JA. The development of heuristics for evaluation of dashboard visualizations. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 511-518
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Croskerry P. From mindless to mindful practice--cognitive bias and clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 2013; 368 (26) 2445-2448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, Tobler PN. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16 (01) 138
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Woods DD, Watts JC. How not to have to navigate through too many displays. In: Helander M, Landauer TK, Prabhu P. , eds. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1997: 617-650
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Senathirajah Y, Kaufman D, Bakken S. User-composable electronic health record improves efficiency of clinician data viewing for patient case appraisal: a mixed-methods study. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2016; 4 (01) 1176
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nolan ME, Siwani R, Helmi H, Pickering BW, Moreno-Franco P, Herasevich V. Health IT usability focus section: data use and navigation patterns among medical ICU clinicians during electronic chart review. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (04) 1117-1126
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Woods DD, Patterson ES, Roth EM. Can we ever escape from data overload? A cognitive systems diagnosis. Cogn Technol Work 2002; 4 (01) 22-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Nolan ME, Cartin-Ceba R, Moreno-Franco P, Pickering B, Herasevich V. A multisite survey study of EMR review habits, information needs, and display preferences among medical ICU clinicians evaluating new patients. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (04) 1197-1207
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hornbæk K, Hertzum M. The notion of overview in information visualization. Int J Hum Comput Stud 2011; 69 (07) 509-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bossen C, Jensen LG. How Physicians 'Achieve Overview': A Case-based Study in a Hospital Ward. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW '14). New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2014: 257-268
    Google Scholar
  • 38 Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR. Making sense of sensemaking 1: alternative perspectives. IEEE Intell Syst 2006; 21 (04) 70-73
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Klein G, Phillips JK, Rall EL, Peluso DA. . A Data-Frame Theory of Sensemaking. In: Expertise Out of Context: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Naturalistic Decision Making. New York, NY: 2007: 113-155
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Khairat SS, Dukkipati A, Lauria HA, Bice T, Travers D, Carson SS. The impact of visualization dashboards on quality of care and clinician satisfaction: integrative literature review. JMIR Human Factors 2018; 5 (02) e22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pickering BW, Herasevich V, Ahmed A, Gajic O. Novel representation of clinical information in the ICU: developing user interfaces which reduce information overload. Appl Clin Inform 2010; 1 (02) 116-131
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ahmed A, Chandra S, Herasevich V, Gajic O, Pickering BW. The effect of two different electronic health record user interfaces on intensive care provider task load, errors of cognition, and performance. Crit Care Med 2011; 39 (07) 1626-1634
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Pickering BW, Dong Y, Ahmed A. et al. The implementation of clinician designed, human-centered electronic medical record viewer in the intensive care unit: a pilot step-wedge cluster randomized trial. Int J Med Inform 2015; 84 (05) 299-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Thomas SM, Overhage JM, Warvel J, McDonald CJ. . A comparison of a printed patient summary document with its electronic equivalent: early results. Proceedings AMIA Symposium; 2001: 701-705
    PubMed
  • 45 Herasevich V, Ellsworth MA, Hebl JR, Brown MJ, Pickering BW. Information needs for the OR and PACU electronic medical record. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (03) 630-641
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Zeng Q, Cimino JJ, Zou KH. Providing concept-oriented views for clinical data using a knowledge-based system: an evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2002; 9 (03) 294-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Van Vleck TT, Stein DM, Stetson PD, Johnson SB. . Assessing data relevance for automated generation of a clinical summary. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings AMIA Symposium; 2007: 761-765
    PubMed
  • 48 Dijkstra EW. The humble programmer. Commun ACM 1972; 15: 859-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kramer J. Is abstraction the key to computing?. Commun ACM 2007; 50 (04) 36-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Verhoeff T. On abstraction and informatics. In: Bezáková D. In: Kalas I. , eds. Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives. 5th International Conference. 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Wing JM. Computational thinking. Commun ACM 2006; 49 (03) 33-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Beasley JW, Wetterneck TB, Temte J. et al. Information chaos in primary care: implications for physician performance and patient safety. J Am Board Fam Med 2011; 24 (06) 745-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Torsvik T, Lillebo B, Hertzum M. How do experienced physicians access and evaluate laboratory test results for the chronic patient? A qualitative analysis. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (02) 403-410
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar