Importance of testing for usability when selecting and implementing an electronic health or medical record system.
OBJECTIVE
An oncology electronic health record (EHR) was implemented without prior usability testing. Before expanding the system to new clinics, this study was initiated to examine the role of usability testing in the evaluation of an EHR product and whether novice users could identify issues with usability that resonated with more experienced users of the system. In addition, our study evaluated whether usability issues with an already implemented system affect efficiency and satisfaction of users.


METHODS
A general usability guide was developed by a group of five informaticists. Using this guide, four novice users evaluated an EHR product and identified issues. A panel of five experts reviewed the identified issues to determine agreement with and applicability to the already implemented system. A survey of 42 experienced users of the previously implemented EHR was also performed to assess efficiency and general satisfaction.


RESULTS
The novice users identified 110 usability issues. Our expert panel agreed with 90% of the issues and recommendations for correction identified by the novice users. Our survey had a 54% response rate. The majority of the experienced users of the previously implemented system, which did not benefit from upfront usability testing, had a high degree of dissatisfaction with efficiency and general functionality but higher overall satisfaction than expected.


CONCLUSIONS
In addition to reviewing features and content of an EHR system, usability testing could improve the chances that the EHR design is integrated with existing workflow and business processes in a clear and efficient way.
Corrao
Natalie J
NJ
Office of the Dean; Department of Medicine; and Division of Hematology-Oncology, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.
Robinson
Alan G
AG
Swiernik
Michael A
MA
Naeim
Arash
A
J Oncol Pract. 2007 May;3(3):172-173
29455609
J Oncol Pract. 2007 Nov;3(6):340
20859391
Telemed J E Health. 2006 Feb;12(1):24-34
16478410
J Oncol Pract. 2005 Jul;1(2):64-5
20871682
J Oncol Pract. 2007 Mar;3(2):106-107
29447535
J Oncol Pract. 2007 Nov;3(6):321-322
29436961
J Oncol Pract. 2007 Sep;3(5):278-279
29442600
J Oncol Pract. 2006 Sep;2(5):262
20859348
Int J Med Inform. 2003 Aug;71(1):43-50
12909157
J Biomed Inform. 2004 Feb;37(1):56-76
15016386
J Oncol Pract. 2008 Jan;4(1):43-44
29443605
J Oncol Pract. 2008 Jul;4(4):203-206
29447501
J Oncol Pract. 2007 Mar;3(2):76-77
29447536
J Oncol Pract. 2006 Mar;2(2):75-6
20871720
J Oncol Pract. 2006 Mar;2(2):67-9
20871719
J Oncol Pract. 2008 Jan;4(1):41-2
20859442
J Biomed Inform. 2003 Feb-Apr;36(1-2):23-30
14552844
J Oncol Pract. 2007 Jul;3(4):231-232
29452502
J Oncol Pract. 2008 Sep;4(5):254-257
29452528