Does the use of structured reporting improve usability? A comparative evaluation of the usability of two approaches for findings reporting in a large-scale telecardiology context

Journal of Biomedical Informatics

Volumn 52, Issue , 2014, Pages 222-230

  Lacerda, Thaisa Cardoso ^a   von Wangenheim, Christiane Gresse ^a   von Wangenheim, Aldo ^a   Giuliano, Isabela ^b  

^a National Institute for Digital Convergence (INCoD)   (Brazil)

^b FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF SANTA CATARINA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

DICOM SR; Heuristic usability evaluation; Keystroke level model; System usability scale; Telecardiology; Telemedicine

Indexed keywords

EFFICIENCY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; HEURISTIC METHODS; SURVEYS; TELEMEDICINE; USER EXPERIENCE;

DICOM-SR; KEY-STROKE LEVEL MODELS; SYSTEM USABILITY; TELECARDIOLOGY; USABILITY EVALUATION;

USABILITY ENGINEERING;

ARTICLE; BRAZIL; ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHY; FREE TEXT REPORT; INFORMATION; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; PRODUCTIVITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SATISFACTION; STRUCTURED REPORT; SYSTEM USABILITY SCALE QUESTIONNAIRE; TELECARDIOLOGY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER INTERFACE; EVALUATION STUDY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGY; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TELEMEDICINE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

EFFICIENCY; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; TELEMEDICINE; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 84919862314     PISSN: 15320464     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Nikus K, Virtanen V, Sclarovsky S, Eskola M. The Role of Standard 12-lead ECG in a Telecardiology Consultation Service, Telemedicine Techniques and Applications. In: Georgi Graschew, Stefan Rakowsky, editors. Rijeka: InTech; 2011.
2. von Wangenheim A., Barcellos C.L., Wagner H.M., Gomes C.C. Ways to implement large scale telemedicine: the Santa Catarina experience. Latin-Am J Telehealth 2009, 3. 364-37.
3. Ricky K.T., Stephen G.S., PRex M.J. Automatic structuring of radiology free-text reports. RadioGrafics 2001, 21:237-245.
4. Gans D., Kralewski J., Hammons T., Dowd B. Medical groups' adoption of electronic health records and information systems. Health Aff 2008 Sep, 24(5):1323-1333.
5. Linder JA, Schnipper JL, Tsurikova R, Melnikas AJ, Volk LA, Middleton B. Barriers to electronic health record use during patient visits. Proceedings of AMIA Symposium; 2006 November 11-15; Washington, USA. New York: Curran Associates, Inc.; 2009. p. 499-503.
6. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med 2009, 1477-1479.
7. Kushniruk AW, Patel VL, Cimino JJ. Usability testing in medical informatics: cognitive approaches to evaluation of information systems and user interfaces. Proceedings of AMIA Symposium; 2007 November 10-15; Chicago, USA. New York: Curran Associates, Inc.; 2010. p. 218-22.
8. Beuscart-Zéphir M.C., Aarts J., Elkin P. Human factors engineering for healthcare IT clinical applications (Editorial). Int J Med Inform 2010, 79(4):223-224.
9. van der Peijl J., Klein J., Grass Ch., Freudenthal A. Design for risk control: the role of usability engineering in the management of use-related risks. J Biomed Inform 2012, 45(4):795-812.
10. DesRoches C.M., Campbell E.G., Rao S.R., et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care-a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:50-60.
11. von Wangenheim A., Nobre L.F.S., Tognoli H., Nassar S.M., Ho K. User satisfaction with asynchronous telemedicine. A study of users of Santa Catarina's system of telemedicine and telehealth. Telemed J E Health 2012, 18(5):339-346.
12. ISO 9241-11. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Guidance on usability; 1998.
13. Lilholt L.H., Pedersen S.S., Madsen I., et al. Development of methods for usability evaluations of EHR systems. Ubiquity: technologies for better health in aging societies 2006, 331-346. IOS Press, Fairfax. A. Hasman, R. Haux, J. van der Lei (Eds.).
14. Roth C.P., Lim Y., Pevnick J.M., Asch S.M., McGlynn E.A. The challenge of measuring quality of care from the electronic health record. Am J Med Qual 2009, 24:385-394.
15. Brown W., Yen P.Y., Rojas M., Schnall R. Assessment of the health IT usability evaluation model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology. J Biomed Inform 2013, 46(6):1080-1087.
16. Zhang J., Waiji M. TURF: toward a unified framework of EHR usability. J Biomed Inform 2011, 44(6):1056-1106.
17. Wallauer J., Macedo D., Andrade R., von Wangenheim A. Creating a statewide public health record starting from a telemedicine network. IT Professional 2008, 10:12-17.
18. Wootton R., Craig J., Patterson V. Introduction to telemedicine 2006, Royal Society of Medicine Press, London, p. 206. 2nd ed.
19. Bartoo G, Bogucki T. Essentials of usability engineering in point-of-care devices. Proceedings of IEEE Point-of-Care Healthcare Technologies (PHT); 2013 January 16-18; SheratonBanglore, India. IEEE. p. 184-7.
20. Weiss D.L., Langlotz C.P. Structured radiology reporting: are we there yet?. Radiology 2009, 253:23-25.
21. Weiss D.L., Langlotz C.P. Structured reporting: patient care enhancement or productivity nightmare?. Radiology 2008, 249(3):739-747.
22. Barbosa F., Maciel L.M.Z., Vieira E.M., Marques P.M.A., Elias J.J.R., Muglia V.F. Radiological reports: a comparison between the transmission efficiency of information in free text and in structured reports. CLINICS 2010, 65(1):15-21.
23. Wikström L. An application design supporting structured radiology reports [Master Thesis]. Sweden: Umeà University; 2007. http://www8.cs.umu.se/education/examina/Rapporter/LinnWikstrom.pdf.
24. Bosmans J.M.L., Peremans L., Menni M., De Schepper A.M., Duyck P.O., Parizel P.M. Structured reporting: if, why, when, how-and at what expense? Results of a focus group meeting of radiology professionals from eight countries. Insights Imaging 2012, 3(3):295-302.
25. Roth C.P., Lim Y., Pevnick J.M., Asch S.M., McGlynn E.A. The challenge of measuring quality of care from the electronic health record. Am J Med Qual 2009, 24:385-394.
26. Brooke J. SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland AL, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. London: Taylor and Francis; 1996.
27. Lewis JR. Usability Testing. In: Salvendy G, editor. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. New York, NY: John Wiley; 2006; p. 1275-316.
28. Bangor A., Kortum P.T., Miller J.T. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Human-Comput Interact 2008, 24(6):574-594.
29. Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud 2013, 8(2):29-40.
30. Thomas Tullis, William Albert. Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Morgan Kaufmann; 1 edition, March 31, 2008; p. 336.
31. Jordan P.W. An introduction to usability 2001, Taylor & Francis Group Book Ltd., London, p. 120.
32. Preece J., Rogers Y., Sharp H. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction 2002, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
33. Card S.K., Thomas T.P., Newall A. The psychology of human-computer interaction, London: Lawrence Erlbaum associates 1983, Hillsdale, NJ, p. 469.
34. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. Usability inspection methods 1994, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
35. Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K. Electronic health record usability: evaluation and use case framework. Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication. 2009 Oct; Report No.: 09(10):0091-1F.
36. Lowry SZ, Quinn MT, Ramaiah M, Schumacher RM, Patterson ES, North R, et al. Technical Evaluation, Testing, and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records. Gaithersburg, MD: NIST; 2012. Report No.: NISTIR 7804.
37. Suchman L.A. Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication 1987, Cambridge Press, Cambridge.
38. Nielsen J, Levy J. Measuring usability: preference vs. performance. Communications of the ACM37; 1994 April 1. p. 66-75.
39. Armijo D, McDonnell C, Werner K. Electronic health record usability: interface design considerations. Rockville, MD: AHRQ Publication. October 2009; Report No.: 09(10):0091-2F.