New AHRQ-Funded Report Provides Snapshot of Electronic Health Record (EHR) Vendor Usability Processes and Practices

Received via email on May 27, 2010:  “The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has issued a new report that focuses on assessing and improving the state of usability in Electronic Health Record (EHR) systems.  Key recommendations from the project’s expert panel include establishment of usability / information design of EHRs as an essential part of the certification requirements for EHRs, basing certification on a practical and fair process of usability evaluation, and designing certification programs for EHR usability in a way that focuses on objective and important aspects of system usability. Select to access the report and learn more about the panel’s recommendations.(PDF file).

“AHRQ is working closely with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Office of the National Coordinator to address the recommendations identified in its research.  In June, AHRQ plans to award a follow-on project for the development, testing and dissemination of an easy-to-use, objective and evidence-based toolkit that healthcare organizations can use to evaluate critical aspects of their EHR systems’ usability, accessibility and information design.  In addition, NIST is currently seeking applications for development of an EHR usability evaluation framework at a meeting, titled “Health Care IT Usability: Strategy, Research, Implementation,” to be held in Gaithersburg, MD, on July 13, (2010).”

The report was written by Cheryl McDonnell, Kristen Werner, and Lauren Wendel; and was prepared by James Bell Associates and The Altarum Institute. Suggested citation: McDonnell C, Werner K, Wendel L. Electronic Health Record Usability: Vendor Practices and Perspectives. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0091-3-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. May 2010.

Excerpted from the pdf report:
Electronic Health Record Usability:
Vendor Practices and Perspectives
May 2010

Executive Summary 

One of the key factors driving the adoption and appropriate utilization of electronic health record (EHR) systems is their usability. (1) However, a recent study funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) identified information about current EHR vendor usability processes and practices during the different phases of product development and deployment as a key research gap. (2)To address this gap and identify actionable recommendations to move the field forward, AHRQ contracted with James Bell Associates and the Altarum Institute to conduct a series of structured discussions with selected certified EHR vendors and to solicit recommendations based on these findings from a panel of multidisciplinary experts in this area.

The objectives of the project were to understand processes and practices by these vendors with regard to:

     •   The existence and use of standards and “best practices” in designing, developing, and deploying products.

     •  Testing and evaluating usability throughout the product life cycle.

     •  Supporting postdeployment monitoring to ensure patient safety and effective use.

In addition, the project solicited the perspectives of certified EHR vendors with regard to the role of certification in evaluating and improving usability.

The key findings from the interviews are summarized below.

     •  All vendors expressed a deep commitment to the development and provision of usable EHR product(s) to the market.

     •  Although vendors described an array of usability engineering processes and the use of end users throughout the product life cycle, practices such as formal usability testing, the use of user-centered design processes, and specific resource personnel with expertise in usability engineering are not common.

     •  Specific best practices and standards of design, testing, and monitoring of the usability of EHR products are not readily available. Vendors reported use of general (software) and proprietary industry guidelines and best practices to support usability. Reported perspectives on critical issues such as allowable level of customization by customers varied dramatically.

     •  Many vendors did not initially address potential negative impacts of their products as a priority design issue. Vendors reported a variety of formal and informal processes for identifying, tracking, and addressing patient safety issues related to the usability of their products.

     •  Most vendors reported that they collect, but do not share, lists of incidents related to usability as a subset of user-reported “bugs” and product-enhancement requests. While all vendors described a process, procedures to classify and report usability issues of EHR  products are not standardized across the industry.

     •  No vendors reported placing specific contractual restrictions on disclosures by system users of patient safety incidents that were potentially related to their products.

     •  Disagreement exists among vendors as to the ideal method for ensuring usability standards, and best practices are evaluated and communicated across the industry as well as to customers. Many view the inclusion of usability as part of product certification as part of a larger “game” for staying competitive, but also as potentially too complex or something that will “stifle innovation” in this area.

     •  Because nearly all vendors view usability as their chief competitive differentiator, collaboration among vendors with regard to usability is almost nonexistent.

     •  To overcome competitive pressures, many vendors expressed interest in an independent body guiding the development of voluntary usability standards for EHRs. This body could build on existing models of vendor collaboration, which are currently focused predominantly on issues of interoperability.

Based on the feedback gained from the interviews and from their experience with usability best practices in health care and other industries, the project expert panel made the following recommendations:

     •  Encourage vendors to address key shortcomings that exist in current processes and practices related to the usability of their products. Most critical among these are lack of adherence to formal user-design processes and a lack of diversity in end users involved in the testing and evaluation process.

     • Include in the design and testing process, and collect feedback from, a variety of end-user contingents throughout the product life cycle. Potentially undersampled populations include end users from nonacademic backgrounds with limited past experience with health information technology and those with disabilities.

     •  Support an independent body for vendor collaboration and standards development to overcome market forces that discourage collaboration, development of best practices, and standards harmonization in this area.

     •  Develop standards and best practices in use of customization during EHR deployment.

     •  Encourage formal usability testing early in the design and development phase as a best practice, and discourage dependence on postdeployment review supporting usability assessments.

     •  Support research and development of tools that evaluate and report EHR ease of learning, effectiveness, and satisfaction both qualitatively and quantitatively.

     •  Increase research and development of best practices supporting designing for patient safety.

     •  Design certification programs for EHR usability in a way that focuses on objective and

important aspects of system usability.

Background

Encouraged by Federal leadership, significant investments in health information technology (IT) are being made across the country. While the influx of capital into the electronic health record (EHR)/health information exchange (HIE) market will undoubtedly stimulate innovation, there is the corresponding recognition that this may present an exceptional opportunity to guide that innovation in ways that benefit a significant majority of potential health IT users.

One of the key factors driving the adoption and appropriate utilization of EHR systems is their usability. (1) While recognized as critical, usability has not historically received the same level of attention as software features, functions, and technical standards. A recent analysis funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) found that very little systematic evidence has been gathered on the usability of EHRs in practice. Further review established a foundation of EHR user-interface design considerations, and an action agenda was proposed for the application of information design principles to the use of health IT in primary care settings. (2), (3)

In response to these recommendations, AHRQ contracted with James Bell Associates and the Altarum Institute to evaluate current vendor-based practices for integrating usability during the entire life cycle of the product, including the design, testing, and postdeployment phases of EHR development. A selected group of EHR vendors, identified through the support of the Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) and AHRQ, participated in semistructured interviews. The discussions explored current standards and practices for ensuring the usability and safety of EHR products and assessed the vendors’ perspectives on how EHR usability and information design should be certified, measured, and addressed by the government, the EHR industry, and its customers. Summary interview findings were then distributed to experts in the field to gather implications and recommendations resulting from these discussions.

Vendor Profiles

The vendors interviewed were specifically chosen to represent a wide distribution of providers of ambulatory EHR products. There was a representation of small-sized businesses (less than 100 employees), medium-sized businesses (100-500 employees), and large-sized businesses (greater than 500 employees). The number of clinician users per company varied from 1,000 to over 7,000, and revenue ranged from $1 million to over $10 billion per year. The EHR products discussed came on the market in some form in the time period from the mid-1990s to 2007. All vendors except one had developed their EHR internally from the ground up, with the remaining one internally developing major enhancements for an acquired product. Many of these products were initially designed and developed based on a founding physician’s practice and/or established clinical processes. All companies reported that they are currently engaged in groundup development of new products and/or enhancements of their existing ambulatory products. Many enhancements of ambulatory products center on updates or improvements in usability. Examples of new developments include changes in products from client-based to Web-based EHRs; general changes to improve the overall usability and look and feel of the product; and the integration of new technologies such as patient portals, personal health records, and tablet devices.

The full list of vendors interviewed and a description of their key ambulatory EHR products are provided in Appendixes I and II. The following discussion provides a summary of the themes encountered in these interviews.

Standards in Design and Development

End-User InvolvementAll vendors reported actively involving their intended end users throughout the entirendesign and development process. Many vendors also have a staff member with clinical experience involved in the design and development process; for some companies the clinician was a founding member of the organization.nWorkgroups and advisory panels are the most common sources of feedback, with some vendors utilizing a more comprehensive participatory design approach, incorporating feedback from all stakeholders throughout the design process. Vendors seek this information to develop initial product requirements, as well as to define workflows, evaluate wireframes and prototypes, and participate in initial beta testing. When identifying users for workgroups, advisory panels, or beta sites, vendors look for clinicians who have a strong interest in technology, the ability to evaluate usability, and the patience to provide regular feedback. Clinicians meeting these requirements are most often found in academic medical centers. When the design concerns an enhancement to thencurrent product, vendors often look toward users familiar with the existing EHR to provide thismfeedback.

“We want to engage with leadership-level poartners as well as end users from all venues that may be impacted by out product.”

Design Standards and Best Practices

A reliance on end-user input and observation for ground-up development is seen as a requirement in the area of EHR design, where specific design standards and best practices are not yet well defined. Vendors indicated that appropriate and comprehensive standards were lacking for EHRspecific functionalities, and therefore they rely on general software design best practices to inform design, development, and usability. While these software design principles help to guide their processes, they must be adjusted to fit specific end-user needs within a health care setting. In addition to following existing general design guidelines such as Microsoft Common User Access, Windows User Interface, Nielsen Norman Group, human factors best practices, and releases from user interface (UI) and usability professional organizations, many vendors consult with Web sites, blogs, and professional organizations related to health IT to keep up to date with specific industry trends. Supplementing these outside resources, many vendors are actively developing internal documentation as their products grow and mature, with several reporting organized efforts to create internal documentation supporting product-specific standards and best practices that can be applied through future product updates and releases.

“There are no standards most of the time, and when there are standards, there is no enforcement of them. The software industry has plenty of guidelines and good best practices, but in health IT, there are none.”

Industry Collaboration

As these standards and best practices are being developed, they are not being disseminated throughout the industry. Vendors receive some information through professional  organizations and conferences, but they would like to see a stronger push toward an independent body, either governmental or research based, to establish some of these standards. The independent body would be required, as all vendors reported usability as a key competitive differentiator for their product;this creates a strong disincentive for industrywide collaboration. While all were eager to take advantage of any resources commonly applied across the industry, few were comfortable with sharing their internally developed designs or best practices for fear of losing a major component of their product’s competitiveness. Some vendors did report they collaborate informally within the health IT industry, particularly through professional societies, trade conferences, and serving on committees. For example, several vendors mentioned participation in the Electronic Health Record Association (EHRA), sponsored by the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS), but noted that the focus of this group is on clinical vocabulary modeling rather than the usability of EHRs. Some interviewees expressed a desire to collaborate on standards issues that impact usability and patient safety through independent venues such as government or research agencies.

“The field is competitive so there is little sharing of best practices in the community. The industry should not look toward vendors to create these best practices. Other entities must step up and define [them] and let the industry adapt.”

Customization

In addition to the initial design and development process, vendors commonly work with end users to customize or configure specific parts of the EHR. Vendors differed in the extent to which they allowed and facilitated customization and noted the potential for introducing errors when customization is pursued. Most customizations involve setting security rules based on roles within a clinic and the creation of document templates that fit a clinic’s specific workflow. Many vendors view this process as a critical step toward a successful implementation and try to assist users to an extent in developing these items. While some vendors track these customizations as insight for future product design, they do not view the customizations as something that can be generalized to their entire user base, as so many are context specific. The level of customization varies according to vendor since vendors have different views about the extent to which their product can or should be customized. Vendors do not routinely make changes to the code or underlying interface based on a user request; however, the level to which end users can modify templates, workflows, and other interface-related characteristics varies greatly by vendor offering.

“You cannot possibly adapt technology to everyone’s workflow. You must provide the most optimum way of doing something which [users] can adapt.”

Usability Testing and Evaluation

Informal Usability Assessments

Formal usability assessments, such as task-centered user tests, heuristic evaluations, cognitive walkthroughs, and card sorts, are not a common activity during the design and development process for the majority of vendors. Lack of time, personnel, and budget resources were cited as reasons for this absence; however, the majority expressed a desire to increase these types of formal assessments. There was a common perception among the vendors that usability assessments are expensive and time consuming to implement during the design and development phase. The level of formal usability testing appeared to vary by vendor size, with larger companies having more staff and resources dedicated to usability testing while smaller vendors relied heavily on informal methods (e.g., observations, interviews), which were more integrated into the general development process. Although some reported that they conduct a full gamut of both formal and informal usability assessments for some parts of the design process, most reported restricting their use of formal methods to key points in the process (e.g., during the final design phase or for evaluation of specific critical features during development).

“Due to time and resource constraints, we do not do as much as we would like to do. It is an area in which we are looking to do more.”

Measurement

Functions are selected for usability testing according to several criteria: frequency of use, task criticality and complexity, customer feedback, difficult design areas, risk and liability, effects on revenue, compliance issues (e.g., Military Health System HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act], and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and potential impacts on patient safety. The most common or frequent tasks and tasks identified as inherently complex are specifically prioritized for usability testing. Neither benchmarks and standards for performance nor formalized measurements of these tasks are common in the industry. While some vendors do measure number of clicks and amount of time to complete a task, as well as error rates, most do not collect data on factors directly related to the usability of the product, such as ease of learning, effectiveness, and satisfaction. Many vendors reported that the amount of data collected does not allow for quantitative analysis, so instead they rely on more anecdotal and informal methods to ensure that their product works more effectively than paper-based methods and to inform their continuous improvements with up rades and releases.

“Testing is focused more on functionality rather than usability.”

Observation

Observation is the “gold standard” among all vendors for learning how users interact with their EHR. These observations usually take place within the user’s own medical practice, either in person or with software such as TechSmith’s Morae. (4) Vendors will occasionally solicit feedback on rototypes from user conferences in an informal lablike Sstting. These observations are typically used to gather information on clinical workflows or process flows, which are incorporated into the product design, particularly if the vendor is developing a new enhancement or entire product.

“[Methods with] low time and resource efforts are the best [to gather feedback]; wherever users are present, we will gather data.”

Changing Landscape

While informal methods of usability testing seem to be common across most vendors, the landscape appears to be changing toward increasing the importance of usability as a design necessity. Multiple vendors reported the current or recent development of formal in-house observation laboratories where usability testing could be more effectively conducted. Others reported the recent completion of policies and standards directly related to integrating usability more formally into the design process, and one reported a current contract with a third-party vendor to improve usability practices. While it is yet to be seen if these changes will materialize, it appeared that most respondents recognized the value of usability testing in the design process and were taking active steps to improve their practices.

Postdeployment Monitoring and Patient Safety

Feedback Solicitation

Vendors are beginning to incorporate more user feedback into earlier stages of product design and development; however, most of this feedback comes during the postdeployment phase. As all vendors interviewed are currently engaged in either the development of enhancements of current products or the creation of new products, the focus on incorporating feedback from intended end users at all stages of development has increased. Many of the EHRs have been on the market for over 10 years; as a result, many vendors rely heavily on this postdeployment feedback to evaluate product use and inform future product enhancements and designs. Maintaining contact with current users is of high priority to all EHR vendors interviewed and in many ways appeared to represent the most important source of product evaluation and improvement. Feedback is gathered through a variety of sources, including informal comments received by product staff, help desk support calls, training and implementation staff, sales personnel, online user communities, beta clients, advisory panels, and user conferences. With all of these avenues established, vendors appear to attempt to make it as easy as possible for current users to report potential issues as well as seek guidance from other users and the vendor alike.

“A lot of feedback and questions are often turned into enhancements, as they speak to the user experience of the product.”

Review and Response

Once the vendors receive both internal and external feedback, they organize it through a formal escalation process that ranks the severity of the issue based on factors such as number of users impacted, type of functionality involved, patient safety implications, effects on workflow, financial impact to client, regulation compliance, and the source of the problem, either implementation based or product based. In general, safety issues are given a high-priority tag. Based on this escalation process, priorities are set, resources within the organization are assigned, and timelines are created for directly addressing the reported issue. Multiple responses are possible depending on the problem. Responses can include additional user training, software updates included in the next product release, or the creation and release of immediate software patches to correct high-priority issues throughout the customer base.

“Every suggestion is not a good suggestion; some things do not help all users because not all workflows are the same.”

Patient Safety

Adoption of health IT has the potential for introducing beneficial outcomes along many dimensions. It is well recognized, however, that the actual results achieved vary from setting to setting, (5) and numerous studies have reported health IT implementations that introduced unintended adverse consequences detrimental to patient care practice. (6) Surprisingly, in many interviews patient safety was not initially verbalized as a priority issue. Initial comments focused on creating a useful, usable EHR product, not one that addresses potential negative impacts on patient safety. Vendors rely heavily on physcians to notice potential hazards and report these hazards to them through their initial design and development advisory panels and postdeployment feedback mechanisms. After further questioning specific to adverse events, however, most vendors did describe having processes in place for monitoring potential safety issues on a variety of fronts. Some vendors become aware of patient safety issues through user feedback collected from patient safety offices and field visits; others educate support staff as well as users on how to identify potential patient safety risks and properly notify those who can address the issue. Once patient safety issues are identified, vendors address them in various ways, including tracking and reporting potential issues online, using patient safety review boards to quantify risk, and engaging cognitive engineers to uncover root causes.

When asked about client contracts, no vendors reported placing specific contractual restrictions on disclosures by system users of patient safety incidents that were potentially related to the EHR products, sharing patient safety incidents with other customers or other clinicians, or publishing research on how the EHR system affects patient safety or their clinical operations.

“Physicians are very acutely aware of how technology is going to impact patient safety; that’s their focus and motivation.”Role of Certification in Evaluating Usability

Current Certification Strategies

The issue of certification is one that elicited strong opinions from most vendors. Certification of any type represents an investment of time and money to meet standards originating outside the organization. For many vendors, particularly the smaller ones, this investment was seen as burdensome. Vendors commonly described the current CCHIT certification process as part of a larger “game” they must play in order to remain viable in the marketplace, not as a way to improve theirnproduct(s). Accounts of functions added specifically for certification but not used by customers were common, as well as specific
instances where vendors felt meeting certification guidelines actually reduced aspects of their product’s quality. As one vendor noted, sometimes providing the functionality for “checking the box” to meet a certification requirement involves a backward step and a lowering of a potentially innovative internal standard. As meaningful use has entered the picture, however, vendors are striving to provide their customers with products that will comply with this definition and plan to participate in any associated certifications.

“We don’t want to get dinged for an innovative standard that we’ve developed and [that] tested well with users because it doesn’t fit the criteria.”

Subjectivity

Interviewees held mixed opinions on whether the certification process can effectively evaluate the usability aspect of EHR performance. Without exception, participating vendors had concerns about the inherent subjectivity of evaluation of usability, which can be strongly affected by the past EHR experience of the user, the context in which the product is used, and even the education and background of the evaluator. Methods for overcoming these types of bias issues included suggestions such as certifying workflows rather than attempting to measure usability, comparing objective product performance (time and error rates) for specific tasks, or measuring usability based on end-user surveys instead of juror analysis.

“Some products may be strong, but due to the familiarity of jurors of a product or technology, some products may be overrated or  underrated.”

Innovation

Several interviewees also expressed concern about the effect of usability certification on innovation within the EHR marketplace. This seemed to stem from experience with CCHIT’s feature- and function-based criteria. It was noted that in the developing EHR marketplace, current systems are striving to make significant changes in the way physicians practice care, which has inherent negative implications for perceived usability early in the product’s release. Guidelines or ratings that are too prescriptive may have the effect of forcing vendors to create technologies that more directly mirror current practices, a strategy that could limit innovation and the overall effectiveness of EHRs.

“Products are picked on the amount of things they do, not how well they do them. CCHIT perpetuates this cycle; if a product contains certain functions, it is placed among the elite. That has nothing to do with usability.”

Recognized Need

Despite these concerns, vendors recognized the role certification could play both as an indicator to support customers in selecting EHRs and as a method through which established standards could be disseminated across the industry. While there is unease about the details of the conduct of certification, many vendors thought that some form of certification or evaluation had the potential to serve as a complement to what is now a predominantly market-driven issue. While each vendor viewed itself as a leader in the development of usable EHR systems and supported the role of consumer demand in continuing to improve product  usability, vendors recognized that there could be utility to more standardized testing that could be evenly applied throughout the industry.

“Being aware of standards and guidelines is very important, but we also want to make sure we are not hamstrung by them.”

Conclusion

All vendors interviewed expressed a deep commitment to the continued development and provision of usable EHR product(s) to the market. Vendors believe that as features and functions become more standardized across the industry, industry leaders will begin to differentiate themselves from the rest of the market based on usability. Current best practices and standards of design, testing, and monitoring EHR product(s), particularly for usability, are varied and not well disseminated. While models for vendor collaboration for issues such as interoperability currently exist through EHRA and IHE (Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise), collaboration among vendors with regard to usability is almost nonexistent. Given the current move toward the adoption and meaningful use of health IT, and the role usability plays in realizing intended benefits, a transition from the current environment seems likely. This could be driven by many sources, including standards developed by academic research, certification required by government entities, collaboration through a nonprofit association such as EHRA or IHE, or simply market pressures demanding more usable offerings. Vendors recognize these pressures and the importance of usability to the continued success of their products. Disagreement exists as to the ideal method for ensuring that usability is evaluated and communicated across the industry as well as to customers. This disagreement exists even within companies, as well as across vendors. Regardless of this uncertainty, there is agreement that end users need to remain a central component within the development process, innovation needs to be encouraged, and usability needs to be a critical driver of efficient, effective, and safe EHRs.

Implications and Recommendations

The summary interview findings were distributed to selected experts in the field, who provided additional thoughts on the implications of these discussions and developed recommendations based on the discussions. A summary of these suggestions follows.

Standards in Design and Development

Increase diversity of users surveyed for pre-deployment feedback. While the use of subject-matter experts and inclusion of end-user feedback in the design and development process are beneficial and important approaches, the end-user selection process currently in use has a potential for bias. Vendors noted extensive use of volunteered feedback. Clinicians with a strong interest in technology, the ability to evaluate usability, and the patience to provide regular feedback are not indicative of the typical end user. Additionally, as these types of clinicians are commonly found in academic medical centers, they may rely on residents or other trainees to do most of the work involving the EHR. Similar issues exist when soliciting input from users familiar with the existing EHR; these users have potentially learned, sometimes unconsciously, to work around or ignore many of the usability problems of the current system. To some extent, vendors must utilize this “coalition of the willing” to gather feedback, given the extremely busy schedules of most practicing clinicians. However, steps must be taken both in the vendor community and by independent bodies to encourage inclusion of a more diverse range of users in all stages of the design process. This more inclusive approach will ultimately support a more usable end product.

Support an independent body for vendor collaboration and standards development. Lack of vendor collaboration resulting from attempts to protect intellectual property and uphold a competitive edge is understandable. However, with the accelerated adoption timeframe encouraged by recent legislation and increasing demand, letting the market act as a primary driver to dictate usability standards may not ensure that appropriate standards are adopted. The user base currently has relatively limited abilities to accurately determine product usability before purchase and, if dissatisfied after purchase, may incur significant expense to explore more usable products. Simply deeming an EHR usable or not usable does not create or disseminate standards and best practices for design. The market can provide direction, but more must be done to document trends and best practices, create new standards for design, and regulate implementation across the industry.

Develop standards and best practices in use of customization during EHR deployment. Customization is often a key to successful implementation within a site, as it can enable users to document the clinical visit in a way that accommodates their usual methods and existing workflow. However, customization may also serve to hide existing usability issues within an EHR, prevent users from interacting with advanced functions, or even create unintended consequences that negatively impact patient safety. There is an additional concern that customization may negatively impact future interoperability and consistency in design across the industry. Customer demand for customization exists and some level of customization can be beneficial to supporting individual workflows; however, more work must be done to evaluate the level of customization that maximizes the EHR’s benefits and limits its risks.

Usability Testing and Evaluation

Encourage formal usability testing early in the design and development phase as a best practice. Usability assessments can be resource intensive; however, it has been demonstrated that including them in the design and development phase is more effective and less expensive than responding to and correcting items after market release.7 Identifying and correcting issues before release also reduce help desk support and training costs. Vendors indicated an awareness of this tradeoff and a move toward investment in usability assessment up front. Further monitoring will be required to evaluate how the vendor community incorporates formal usability testing within future design and development practices.

Evaluate ease of learning, effectiveness, and satisfaction qualitatively and
quantitatively. Observations are an important component of usability testing but are insufficient for assessment of the root cause of usability issues. Alternatively, quantitative data such as number of clicks, time to complete tasks, and error rates can help the vendor identify tasks that may present usability issues but must be further explored to identify underlying issues. A mix of structured qualitative and quantitative approaches, incorporating at minimum an assessment of the three basic factors directly contributing to product usability—ease of learning, effectiveness, and satisfaction—will serve to broaden the impact of usability assessments beyond the informal methods commonly employed today.

Postdeployment Monitoring and Patient Safety

Decrease dependence on postdeployment review supporting usability assessments. Usability issues are usually not simple, one-function problems, but tend to be pervasive throughout the EHR. So while small-scale issues are often reported and corrected after deployment, the identified issue may not be the primary determinant of a product’s usability. It is chiefly within the main displays of information that are omnipresent, such as menu listings, use of pop-up boxes, and the interaction between screens, that the EHR’s usability is determined. Even with the best of intentions, it is unlikely that vendors will be able to resolve major usability issues after release. By not identifying critical usability issues through a wide range of user testing during design and development, vendors are opening the door to potential patient safety incidents and costly postrelease fixes.

Increase research and development of best practices supporting designing for patient safety. Monitoring and designing for patient safety, like usability testing, appear to be most prevalent late in the design of the product or during its release cycle. Vendors’ heavy reliance on end users or advisory panels to point out patient safety issues in many ways mirrors the informal  methods used to advance usability of their products. While patient safety similarly lacks specific standards for vendors to follow, vendors are currently collaborating on patient safety issues. These collaborations appear to be in their early stages, but they provide an opportunity toenhance vendor awareness and vendor response to potential patient safety issues within their products and improve their ability to incorporate patient safety much earlier in the design process. Further work must be done to directly connect design to patient safety and ensure that standards are created and disseminated throughout the industry.

Role of Certification in Evaluating Usability

Certification programs should be carefully designed and valid. Any certification or outside evaluation will be initially approached with questions as to its validity, and the concept of usability certification is no exception. Usability is a complex multifaceted system characteristic, and usability certification must reflect that complexity. Further complicating this issue is the fact that vendors have already participated in a certification process that most did not find particularly valuable in enhancing their product. Driving the EHR market toward creation of usable products requires development of a process that accurately identifies usable products, establishes and disseminates standards, and encourages innovation.

References

(1). Belden J, Grayson R, Barnes J. Defining and Testing EMR Usability: Principles and Proposed Methods of EMR Usability Evaluation and Rating. Healthcare Information Management and Systems Society Electronic Health Record Usability Task Force. Available at:
http://www.himss.org/content/files/HIMSS_DefiningandTestingEMRUsability.pdf
Accessed June 2009.

(2). Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K. Electronic Health Record Usability: Interface Design Considerations. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0091-2-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. October 2009.

(3). Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K. Electronic Health Record Usability: Evaluation and Use Case Framework. AHRQ Publication No. 09(10)-0091-1-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. October 2009.

(4). TechSmith. Morae: usability testing and market research software. Available at: http://www.techsmith.com/morae.asp .

(5). Ammenwerth E, Talmon J, Ash JS, et al. Impact of CPOE on mortality rates—contradictory findings, important messages. Methods Inf Med 2006;45:586-93.

(6). Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005;293:1197-203.

(7). Gilb T, Finzi S. Principles of software engineering management. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.; 1988

The report includes two appendices: Summary of Interviewed Vendors and Description of Electronic Health Records.

Vendors interviewed were
athenahealth, Inc. — athenaClinicals 9.15.1
Cerner Corporation –  Cerner Millenium Powerchart/PowerWorks EMR 2007.19
Criterions, LLC — Criterions 1.0.0
e-MDs — e-MDs Solution Series 6.3
EHS — CareRevolution 5.3
GE Healthcare — Centricity Electronic Medical Record 9.2
NextGen — NextGen EMR 5.5
Veterans Administration –VISTA

See PDF file for complete report.