The term “usability” describes how effectively, efficiently, and with what level of user satisfaction an information system can be used to accomplish specific goals. Computerized critical care information systems (CCISs) with high usability increase quality of care and staff satisfaction, while reducing medication errors. Conversely, systems lacking usability can interrupt clinical workflow, facilitate errors, and increase charting time. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare usability across CCIS currently used in Germany.
Methods:
In this study, German intensive care unit (ICU) nurses and physicians completed a specialized, previously validated, web-based questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed CCIS usability based on three rating models: an overall rating of the systems, a model rating technical usability, and a model rating task-specific usability.
Results:
We analyzed results from 535 survey participants and compared eight different CCIS commonly used in Germany. Our results showed that usability strongly differs across the compared systems. The system ICUData had the best overall rating and technical usability, followed by the platforms ICM and MetaVision. The same three systems performed best in the rating of task-specific usability without significant differences between each other. Across all systems, overall ratings were more dependent on ease-of-use aspects than on aspects of utility/functionality, and the general scope of the functions offered was rated better than how well the functions are realized.
Discussion:
Our results suggest that manufacturers should shift some of their effort away from the development of new features and focus more on improving the ease-of-use and quality of existing features.
LevyMM. Computers in the intensive care unit. J Crit Care. 2004;19(4):199–200
2.
MartichGDWaldmannCSImhoffM. Clinical informatics in critical care. J Intensive Care Med. 2004;19(3):154–163
3.
VaronJMarikPE. Clinical information systems and the electronic medical record in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2002;8(6):616–624.
4.
FraenkelDJCowieMDaleyP. Quality benefits of an intensive care clinical information system. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(1):120–125.
5.
van SchijndelRJMSde GrootSDWDriessenRH. Computer-aided support improves early and adequate delivery of nutrients in the ICU. Neth J Med. 2009;67(11):388–393.
6.
ShekellePGMortonSCKeelerEB. Costs and benefits of health information technology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2006;(132):1–71.
7.
MurffHJKannryJ. Physician satisfaction with two order entry systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001;8(5):499–509.
8.
SchuldJSchäferTNickelSJacobPSchillingMKRichterS. Impact of IT-supported clinical pathways on medical staff satisfaction: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(3):151–156.
9.
WarrickCNaikHAvisSFletcherPFranklinBDInwaldD. A clinical information system reduces medication errors in paediatric intensive care. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(4):691–694.
10.
van RosseFMaatBRademakerCMAvan VughtAJEgbertsACGBollenCW. The effect of computerized physician order entry on medication prescription errors and clinical outcome in pediatric and intensive care: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2009;123(4):1184–1190.
11.
BatesDWTeichJMLeeJ. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6(4):313–321.
12.
KaushalRShojaniaKGBatesDW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(12):1409–1416.
13.
CorderoLKuehnLKumarRRMekhjianHS. Impact of computerized physician order entry on clinical practice in a newborn intensive care unit. J Perinatol. 2004;24(2):88–93.
14.
LeungAAKeohaneCAmatoM. Impact of vendor computerized physician order entry in community hospitals. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(7):801–807.
15.
HugBLWitkowskiDJSoxCM. Adverse drug event rates in six community hospitals and the potential impact of computerized physician order entry for prevention. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):31–38.
16.
BosmanRJRoodEOudemans-van StraatenHMVan der SpoelJIWesterJPJZandstraDF. Intensive care information system reduces documentation time of the nurses after cardiothoracic surgery. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(1):83–90.
17.
BosmanRJ. Impact of computerized information systems on workload in operating room and intensive care unit. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2009;23(1):15–26.
18.
DonatiAGabbanelliVPantanettiS. The impact of a clinical information system in an intensive care unit. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(1):31–36.
19.
MadorRLShawNT. The impact of a Critical Care Information System (CCIS) on time spent charting and in direct patient care by staff in the ICU: a review of the literature. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(7):435–445.
20.
WongDHGallegosYWeingerMBClackSSlagleJAndersonCT. Changes in intensive care unit nurse task activity after installation of a third-generation intensive care unit information system. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(10):2488–2494.
21.
ApkonMSinghaviranonP. Impact of an electronic information system on physician workflow and data collection in the intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27(1):122–130.
22.
PierpontGLThilgenD. Effect of computerized charting on nursing activity in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 1995;23(6):1067–1073.
23.
KilgoreMLFlintDPearceR. The varying impact of two clinical information systems in a cardiovascular intensive care unit. J Cardiovasc Manag. 1998;9(2):31–35.
24.
MarasovicCKenneyCElliottDSindhusakeD. A comparison of nursing activities associated with manual and automated documentation in an Australian intensive care unit. Comput Nurs. 1997;15(4):205–211.
25.
MenkeJABronerCWCampbellDYMcKissickMYEdwards-BeckettJA. Computerized clinical documentation system in the pediatric intensive care unit. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2001;1:3
26.
BradshawKESittigDFGardnerRMPryorTABuddM. Computer-based data entry for nurses in the ICU. MD Comput. 1989;6(5):274–280.
27.
SaarinenKAhoM. Does the implementation of a clinical information system decrease the time intensive care nurses spend on documentation of care?Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2005;49(1):62–65.
28.
KoppelRMetlayJPCohenA. Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1197–1203.
29.
TangZWeavindLMazabobJThomasEJChu-WeiningerMYLJohnsonTR. Workflow in intensive care unit remote monitoring: a time-and-motion study. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(9):2057–2063.
30.
ShawNTMadorRLHoS. Understanding the impact on intensive care staff workflow due to the introduction of a critical care information system: a mixed methods research methodology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009;143:186–191.
31.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—part 11: guidance on usability. ISO 9241-11:1998. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2008. www.iso.org.
32.
ViitanenJHyppönenHLääveriTVänskäJReponenJWinbladI. National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: physicians suffer from poor usability. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(10):708–725.
33.
von DincklageFLichtnerGSuchodolskiKRagallerMFriesdorfWPodtschaskeB. Design and validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the usability of computerized critical care information systems. J Clin Monit Comput. 2017; 31:833–834.
34.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ergonomics of human-system interaction—Part 110: Dialogue principles. ISO 9241-110: 2006. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2006. www.iso.org.
35.
PeuteLWPSpithovenRBakkerPJMJaspersMWM. Usability studies on interactive health information systems; where do we stand?Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008;136:327–332.
36.
YenPYBakkenS. Review of health information technology usability study methodologies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(3):413–422.
37.
ThiruKRoweSShawNDurwardAInwaldDPRamnarayanP. Survey of clinical information system usage by paediatric intensive care units in the UK. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(9):1616–1617.
38.
AmarasinghamRDiener-WestMWeinerMLehmannHHerbersJEPoweNR. Clinical information technology capabilities in four U.S. hospitals: testing a new structural performance measure. Med Care. 2006;44(3):216–224.
39.
AmarasinghamRPronovostPJDiener-WestM. Measuring clinical information technology in the ICU setting: application in a quality improvement collaborative. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(3):288–294.
40.
BundschuhBBMajeedRWBürkleT. Quality of human-computer interaction—results of a national usability survey of hospital-IT in Germany. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:69.
