Presentation
Lessons Learned Applying Rapid Human Factors Methods at Multiple Healthcare Facilities
DescriptionThis presentation will showcase a comparison of recent rapid system evaluations during a health care organization’s transition from one electronic health record (EHR) to another and the impact on end user experience at two health care facilities. User experience with EHR systems has a direct and important impact on health care employee productivity and satisfaction and on the quality of health care provided to the patient (Maddox, et al., 2023). User experience is influenced by a variety of factors including system response to user input (Tutty, et al., 2019). Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Health Informatics (OHI) led two rapid, multidisciplinary, multistakeholder site visits utilizing semi-structured contextual inquiry (Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1999) to understand the impact of system performance issues to users of the EHR at two VHA facilities.
Major contributing factors to system performance issues is latency and system processing time. Latency is defined as the delay between user input and system response (Attig, et al., 2017). Latency is an important factor in the user experience and a fundamental part of the human-machine interaction; when latency exceeds a certain threshold, user performance is impaired and user satisfaction drops (Shneiderman, 1984). The team utilized semi-structured interviews and observations to document the impact to user experience with system performance issues. Although using the same approach, differences in facility size contributed to a smaller scope in the second site system performance evaluation. The team visited 15 areas of the first facility and six areas of the second. Despite the reduced scope, many of the findings at both sites overlapped; the evaluations captured system performance issues, system errors, usability issues, and workflow complexities experienced by end-users. This presentation will compare the two evaluations and highlight the importance of discount usability methods to produce salient, rapid results.
Attig, C., Rauh, N., Franke, T., Krems, J.F. (2017). System Latency Guidelines Then and Now – Is Zero Latency Really Considered Necessary? In: Harris, D. (eds) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Cognition and Design. EPCE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10276. Springer, Cham. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58475-1_1
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1999). Contextual design. Interactions, 6(1), 32-42.
Maddox, K., Ercolini, D., Chumbler, N. R., Arnold, T., Adams, K., & Fuller, H. (2023). Lessons Learned Using Rapid Human Factors Methods: Condensed Timeline with Effective and Impactful Results. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, 12(1), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2327857923121040
Shneiderman, B. (1984). Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 16(3), 265-285.
Tutty, M. A., Carlasare, L.E., Lloyd, S., & Sinsky, C.A. (2019). The complex case of EHRs: examining the factors impacting the EHR user experience. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 26(7), 673-677. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz021
Major contributing factors to system performance issues is latency and system processing time. Latency is defined as the delay between user input and system response (Attig, et al., 2017). Latency is an important factor in the user experience and a fundamental part of the human-machine interaction; when latency exceeds a certain threshold, user performance is impaired and user satisfaction drops (Shneiderman, 1984). The team utilized semi-structured interviews and observations to document the impact to user experience with system performance issues. Although using the same approach, differences in facility size contributed to a smaller scope in the second site system performance evaluation. The team visited 15 areas of the first facility and six areas of the second. Despite the reduced scope, many of the findings at both sites overlapped; the evaluations captured system performance issues, system errors, usability issues, and workflow complexities experienced by end-users. This presentation will compare the two evaluations and highlight the importance of discount usability methods to produce salient, rapid results.
Attig, C., Rauh, N., Franke, T., Krems, J.F. (2017). System Latency Guidelines Then and Now – Is Zero Latency Really Considered Necessary? In: Harris, D. (eds) Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Cognition and Design. EPCE 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10276. Springer, Cham. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58475-1_1
Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1999). Contextual design. Interactions, 6(1), 32-42.
Maddox, K., Ercolini, D., Chumbler, N. R., Arnold, T., Adams, K., & Fuller, H. (2023). Lessons Learned Using Rapid Human Factors Methods: Condensed Timeline with Effective and Impactful Results. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, 12(1), 174-178. https://doi.org/10.1177/2327857923121040
Shneiderman, B. (1984). Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 16(3), 265-285.
Tutty, M. A., Carlasare, L.E., Lloyd, S., & Sinsky, C.A. (2019). The complex case of EHRs: examining the factors impacting the EHR user experience. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 26(7), 673-677. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocz021
Event Type
Oral Presentations
TimeWednesday, March 279:37am - 10:00am CDT
LocationSalon A-2
Digital Health