Recognising Human Factors In Evaluating User Interfaces In Healthcare - Bridget Kane
- 1. RECOGNISING HUMAN FACTORS IN EVALUATING USER INTERFACES IN HEALTHCARE B. Kane1, L. Longo 1IRCSET Research Fellow
- 2. Overview • Background • Method • Results • Conclusion
- 3. Background – Evaluation of Use • Nielsen’s Heuristics • 10 Usability principles • Aerospace and Automotive Industry • NASA • Healthcare - Context of Use • Pilot
- 4. Method • Pilot Study • Two House Officers + Two Wards (1 each) • Ward A: 18 Long-Stay Elderly Patients with HIGH Dependency Scores • Ward B: 10 Short-Stay Patients, Respite Care with Lower Dependency Scores than Ward A • Questionnaire on use of EPR – over 5 days • Nielsens’s Heuristics & NASA-TLX • Analysis
- 5. Nielsen’s Heuristics • Feedback • Minimise User Memory Load • Speak User’s Language • Shortcuts • Clearly marked exits • Simple Dialogue • Consistency • Good Error Messages • Prevent Errors • Help and Documentation
- 6. NASA-TLX • Mental Demand • Physical Demand • Temporal Demand • Effort • Performance • Frustration
- 7. Results - Overall Nielsen US A B
- 8. Results - Overall NASA-TLX A B
- 9. Results - Overall NASA-TLX – HMW Ward A: High Dependency Scenario Ward B: Lower Dependency Scenario
- 10. Results - Interpretation • Usability of EHR can vary over time • As clinicians approach the end of their working day, performance dramatically declines • As a result of Decreased Performance, more Effort needed • Usability Evaluation methods in Healthcare should be more refined to give better information
- 11. Conclusion • Nielsen’s Principles, while helpful, do not take into account • Context of System Use • Impact of User’s Mental Workload • Human Factors should be incorporated into System Evaluation in Healthcare • More Research is needed into task issues in healthcare and usability
- 12. Reference L. Longo and B. Kane, 2011, A Novel Methodology for Evaluating User Interfaces in Health Care Pages 1-6, 24th IEEE International Symposium on Computer- Based Medical Systems (CBMS), Bristol, England DOI 10.1109/CBMS.2011.5999024
- 13. Acknowlegements • R. T. Venkateshappa, R. Ravikuma and K. Nagesh for helping in gathering data. • B. Kane is funded through the IRCSET Enterprise Partnership scheme with St. James’s Hospital Board, Dublin • St James’s Hospital Board