Feasibility of utilizing a commercial eye tracker to assess electronic health record use during patient simulation

Health Informatics Journal

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 744-757

  Gold, Jeffrey Allen ^a   Stephenson, Laurel E ^b   Gorsuch, Adriel ^a   Parthasarathy, Keshav ^a   Mohan, Vishnu ^a  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

clinical decision making; electronic health records; healthcare professional training; healthcare service innovation and IT; IT healthcare evaluation

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; DISEASE SIMULATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; EYE TRACKING; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; PATIENT SAFETY; RECOGNITION; SACCADIC EYE MOVEMENT; TEACHING; PATIENT SIMULATION; PHYSICIAN; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY; UTILIZATION;

CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; PATIENT SIMULATION; PHYSICIANS; SACCADES;

EID: 84981335283     PISSN: 14604582     EISSN: 17412811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1460458215590250     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 742-752.
2. Goldzweig CL, Towfigh A, Maglione M, et al. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff 2009; 28: w282-w293.
3. Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, et al. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff 2011; 30: 464-471.
4. Han YY, Carcillo JA, Venkataraman ST, et al. Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics 2005; 116: 1506-1512.
5. Manor-Shulman O, Beyene J, Frndova H, et al. Quantifying the volume of documented clinical information in critical illness. J Crit Care 2008; 23: 245-250.
6. Koppel R, Metlay JP, Cohen A, et al. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA 2005; 293: 1197-1203.
7. Ali NA, Mekhjian HS, Kuehn PL, et al. Specificity of computerized physician order entry has a significant effect on the efficiency of workflow for critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2005; 33: 110-114.
8. Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, et al. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: e2-e8.
9. Ancker JS, Kern LM, Edwards A, et al. How is the electronic health record being used? Use of EHR data to assess physician-level variability in technology use. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21: 1001-1008.
10. Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S,. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care-an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007; 14: 542-549.
11. Gold M, Hossain M, Charles DR, et al. Evolving vendor market for HITECH-certified ambulatory EHR products. Am J Manag Care 2013; 19: SP353-SP361.
12. Patel VL, Kushniruk AW, Yang S, et al. Impact of a computer-based patient record system on data collection, knowledge organization, and reasoning. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7: 569-585.
13. Golemboski K,. Improving patient safety: lessons from other disciplines. Clin Lab Sci 2011; 24: 114-119.
14. McDonnell C, Werner K, Wendel L,. Electronic health record usability: vendor practices and perspectives. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2010.
15. de Sousa F, Bevan N,. The use of guidelines in menu interface design: evaluation of a draft standard. In: Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT'90: human-computer interaction, Cambridge, 27-31 August 1990, pp. 435-440. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.
16. Leighton JP,. Avoiding misconception, misuse, and missed opportunities: the collection of verbal reports in educational achievement testing. Educ Meas 2004; 23: 6-15.
17. Simmons B, Lanuza D, Fonteyn M, et al. Clinical reasoning in experienced nurses. West J Nurs Res 2003; 25: 701-719; discussion 720-724.
18. Lorigo L, Haridasan M, Brynjarsdottir H, et al. Eye tracking and online search: lessons learned and challenges ahead. J Am Soc Inform Sci Tech 2008; 59: 1041-1052.
19. Ehmke C, Wilson S,. Identifying web usability problems from eye-tracking data. In: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI group annual conference on people and computers: HCI but not as we know it, Lancaster, 3-7 September 2007, pp. 119-128. Swinton: British Computer Society.
20. Djamasbi S, Siegel M, Tullis T,. Generation Y, web design, and eye tracking. Int J Hum-Comput St 2010; 68: 307-323.
21. Jacob RJ,. Eye tracking in advanced interface design. In: Barfield W, Furness TA, (eds) Virtual environments and advanced interface design. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, pp. 258-288.
22. Reutskaja E, Nagel R, Camerer CF, et al. Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: an eye-tracking study. Am Econ Rev 2011; 101: 900-926.
23. Alkan S, Cagiltay K,. Studying computer game learning experience through eye tracking. Brit J Educ Technol 2007; 38: 538-542.
24. Beard DV, Pisano ED, Denelsbeck KM, et al. Eye movement during computed tomography interpretation: eyetracker results and image display-time implications. J Digit Imaging 1994; 7: 189-192.
25. Manning DJ, Ethell SC, Donovan T,. Detection or decision errors? Missed lung cancer from the posteroanterior chest radiograph. Br J Radiol 2004; 77: 231-235.
26. Tourassi G, Voisin S, Paquit V, et al. Investigating the link between radiologists' gaze, diagnostic decision, and image content. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: 1067-1075.
27. Brown PJ, Marquard JL, Amster B, et al. What do physicians read (and ignore) in electronic progress notes. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5: 430-444.
28. Eghdam A, Forsman J, Falkenhav M, et al. Combining usability testing with eye-tracking technology: evaluation of a visualization support for antibiotic use in intensive care. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011; 169: 945-949.
29. Ahmed A, Chandra S, Herasevich V, et al. The effect of two different electronic health record user interfaces on intensive care provider task load, errors of cognition, and performance. Crit Care Med 39: 1626-1634.
30. March CA, Steiger D, Scholl G, et al. Use of simulation to assess electronic health record safety in the intensive care unit: a pilot study. BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002549.
31. Stephenson LS, Gorsuch A, Hersh WR, et al. Participation in EHR based simulation improves recognition of patient safety issues. BMC Med Educ 2014; 14: 224.
32. Salvucci DD, Goldberg JH,. Identifying fixations and saccades in eye-tracking protocols. In: Proceedings of the eye tracking research and applications symposium, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, 6-8 November 2000, pp. 71-78. New York: ACM Press.
33. Lilholt LH, Pedersen SS, Madsen I, et al. Development of methods for usability evaluations of EHR systems. Stud Health Technol Inform 2006; 124: 341-346.
34. Warden GL, Bagian JP,. Health IT and patient safety: builder safer systems for better care. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, 2011.
35. Ash JS, kilo CM, Shapiro M, et al. Roadmap for provision of safer healthcare information systems: preventing e-Iatrogensis. Institute of Medicine, 2011, https://www.iom.edu/∼/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Health-IT/Commissioned-paper-Roadmap-for-Provision-of-Safer-HIS.pdf
36. Wood G, Batt J, Appelboam A, et al. Exploring the impact of expertise, clinical history, and visual search on electrocardiogram interpretation. Med Decis Making 2014; 34: 75-83.
37. Carpenter RH, Williams ML,. Neural computation of log likelihood in control of saccadic eye movements. Nature 1995; 377: 59-62.
38. Carpenter RH, McDonald SA,. LATER predicts saccade latency distributions in reading. Exp Brain Res 2007; 177: 176-183.