Usability Testing of an Interoperable Computerized Clinical Decision Support Tool for Fall Risk Management in Primary Care.
Usability Testing of an Interoperable Computerized Clinical Decision Support Tool for Fall Risk Management in Primary Care.
复制标题
用于初级保健跌倒风险管理的可互操作计算机化临床决策支持工具的可用性测试。
DOI：
10.1055/a-2006-4936
复制
发表时间：
2023
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Lucero,Robert
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shear,Kristen;Rice,Hannah;Garabedian,PamelaM;Bjarnadottir,Ragnhildur;Lathum,Nancy;Horgas,AnnL;Harle,ChristopherA;Dykes,PatriciaC;Lucero,Robert
背景对于社区居住的老年人来说，瀑布是一个普遍而持久的问题。在初级保健环境中使用预防跌倒指南一直不是最理想的。可互操作的计算机化临床决策支持系统有可能在规模上增加跌倒风险管理的参与度。为了支持跨组织的跌倒风险管理，我们的团队使用可互操作的标准开发了ASPIRE工具，用于不同的初级保健诊所。目的在试点之前进行ASPIRE的可用性测试，以衡量访问的便利性、总体可用性、可获得性和可接受性。方法从具有不同电子健康记录和不同临床组织的两个地点采用目的性抽样的方式招募参与者。形成性测试植根于以用户为中心的设计，之后是使用模拟方法的终结性测试。在终结性测试中，参与者在两个临床场景中使用了ASPIRE，并被随机分配以确定他们最先看到的场景。除了对NVivo中记录的会话进行分析外，还使用了单一易用性问题和系统可用性量表。结果所有14名参与者都根据系统可用性量表的可用性基准对ASPIRE的可用性进行了高于平均水平的评分。在第一个和第二个场景之间，任务上的时间显着减少，这表明良好的可学性。然而，可接受性数据更多地混合了一些建议被一致接受，而另一些建议被采纳的频率较低。结论本研究描述了ASPIRE系统在使用不同电子健康记录的两个不同组织中的可用性测试。总体而言，该系统的评级很好，应该进行进一步的中试测试，以验证这些积极的结果转化为临床实践。由于其可互操作的设计，ASPIRE可以整合到不同的组织中，从而实现量身定做的实施，而不需要为每个组织建立新的系统。这种区别使Aspire处于有利地位，能够应对大规模下跌的挑战。
BackgroundFalls are a widespread and persistent problem for community-dwelling older adults. Use of fall prevention guidelines in the primary care setting has been suboptimal. Interoperable computerized clinical decision support systems have the potential to increase engagement with fall risk management at scale. To support fall risk management across organizations, our team developed the ASPIRE tool for use in differing primary care clinics using interoperable standards.ObjectivesUsability testing of ASPIRE was conducted to measure ease of access, overall usability, learnability, and acceptability prior to pilot .MethodsParticipants were recruited using purposive sampling from two sites with different electronic health records and different clinical organizations. Formative testing rooted in user-centered design was followed by summative testing using a simulation approach. During summative testing participants used ASPIRE across two clinical scenarios and were randomized to determine which scenario they saw first. Single Ease Question and System Usability Scale were used in addition to analysis of recorded sessions in NVivo.ResultsAll 14 participants rated the usability of ASPIRE as above average based on usability benchmarks for the System Usability Scale metric. Time on task decreased significantly between the first and second scenarios indicating good learnability. However, acceptability data were more mixed with some recommendations being consistently accepted while others were adopted less frequently.ConclusionThis study described the usability testing of the ASPIRE system within two different organizations using different electronic health records. Overall, the system was rated well, and further pilot testing should be done to validate that these positive results translate into clinical practice. Due to its interoperable design, ASPIRE could be integrated into diverse organizations allowing a tailored implementation without the need to build a new system for each organization. This distinction makes ASPIRE well positioned to impact the challenge of falls at scale.