Redesign of a computerized clinical reminder for colorectal cancer screening: a human-computer interaction evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Based on barriers to the use of computerized clinical decision support (CDS) learned in an earlier field study, we prototyped design enhancements to the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA's) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical reminder to compare against the VHA's current CRC reminder. METHODS: In a controlled simulation experiment, 12 primary care providers (PCPs) used prototypes of the current and redesigned CRC screening reminder in a within-subject comparison. Quantitative measurements were based on a usability survey, workload assessment instrument, and workflow integration survey. We also collected qualitative data on both designs. RESULTS: Design enhancements to the VHA's existing CRC screening clinical reminder positively impacted aspects of usability and workflow integration but not workload. The qualitative analysis revealed broad support across participants for the design enhancements with specific suggestions for improving the reminder further. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the value of a human-computer interaction evaluation in informing the redesign of information tools to foster uptake, integration into workflow, and use in clinical practice.

Sources of variation in primary care clinical workflow: implications for the design of cognitive support.

This article identifies sources of variation in clinical workflow and implications for the design and implementation of electronic clinical decision support. Sources of variation in workflow were identified via rapid ethnographic observation, focus groups, and interviews across a total of eight medical centers in both the Veterans Health Administration and academic medical centers nationally regarded as leaders in developing and using clinical decision support. Data were reviewed for types of variability within the social and technical subsystems and the external environment as described in the sociotechnical systems theory. Two researchers independently identified examples of variation and their sources, and then met with each other to discuss them until consensus was reached. Sources of variation were categorized as environmental (clinic staffing and clinic pace), social (perception of health information technology and real-time use with patients), or technical (computer access and information access). Examples of sources of variation within each of the categories are described and discussed in terms of impact on clinical workflow. As technologies are implemented, barriers to use become visible over time as users struggle to adapt workflow and work practices to accommodate new technologies. Each source of variability identified has implications for the effective design and implementation of useful health information technology. Accommodating moderate variability in workflow is anticipated to avoid brittle and inflexible workflow designs, while also avoiding unnecessary complexity for implementers and users.

Development of a workflow integration survey (WIS) for implementing computerized clinical decision support.

Interventions that focus on improving computerized clinical decision support (CDS) demonstrate that successful workflow integration can increase the adoption and use of CDS. However, metrics for assessing workflow integration in clinical settings are not well established. The goal of this study was to develop and validate a survey to assess the extent to which CDS is integrated into workflow. Qualitative data on CDS design, usability, and integration from four sites was collected by direct observation, interviews, and focus groups. Thematic analysis based on the sociotechnical systems theory revealed consistent themes across sites. Themes related to workflow integration included navigation, functionality, usability, and workload. Based on these themes, a brief 12-item scale to assess workflow integration was developed, refined, and validated with providers in a simulation study. To our knowledge, this is one of the first tools developed to specifically measure workflow integration of CDS.

Examining the relationship between clinical decision support and performance measurement.

In concept and practice, clinical decision support (CDS) and performance measurement represent distinct approaches to organizational change, yet these two organizational processes are interrelated. We set out to better understand how the relationship between the two is perceived, as well as how they jointly influence clinical practice. To understand the use of CDS at benchmark institutions, we conducted semistructured interviews with key managers, information technology personnel, and clinical leaders during a qualitative field study. Improved performance was frequently cited as a rationale for the use of clinical reminders. Pay-for-performance efforts also appeared to provide motivation for the use of clinical reminders. Shared performance measures were associated with shared clinical reminders. The close link between clinical reminders and performance measurement causes these tools to have many of the same implementation challenges.

Provider perceptions of colorectal cancer screening clinical decision support at three benchmark institutions.

Implementation of computerized clinical decision support (CDS), and its integration into workflow has not reached its potential. To better understand the use of CDS for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at benchmark institutions for health information technology (HIT), we conducted direct observation, including opportunistic interviews of primary care providers, as well as key informant interviews and focus groups, to document current challenges to CRC screening and follow-up at clinics affiliated with the Veterans Heath Administration, Regenstrief Institute, and Partners HealthCare System. Analysis revealed six common barriers across institutions from the primary care providers' perspective: receiving and documenting "outside" exam results, inaccuracy of the CDS, compliance issues, poor usability, lack of coordination between primary care and gastroenterology, and the need to attend to more urgent patient issues. Strategies should be developed to enhance current HIT to address these challenges and better support primary care providers and staff.