Clinical guideline representation in a CDS: a human information processing method.

The Dutch Childhood Oncology Group (DCOG) has developed evidence-based guidelines for screening childhood cancer survivors for possible late complications of treatment. These paper-based guidelines appeared to not suit clinicians' information retrieval strategies; it was thus decided to communicate the guidelines through a Computerized Decision Support (CDS) tool. To ensure high usability of this tool, an analysis of clinicians' cognitive strategies in retrieving information from the paper-based guidelines was used as requirements elicitation method. An information processing model was developed through an analysis of think aloud protocols and used as input for the design of the CDS user interface. Usability analysis of the user interface showed that the navigational structure of the CDS tool fitted well with the clinicians' mental strategies employed in deciding on survivors screening protocols. Clinicians were more efficient and more complete in deciding on patient-tailored screening procedures when supported by the CDS tool than by the paper-based guideline booklet. The think-aloud method provided detailed insight into users' clinical work patterns that supported the design of a highly usable CDS system.

From an expert-driven paper guideline to a user-centred decision support system: a usability comparison study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a user-centred prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) providing patient-specific advice better supports healthcare practitioners in terms of (a) types of usability problems detected and (b) effective and efficient retrieval of childhood cancer survivor's follow-up screening procedures compared to an expert-driven paper-based guideline. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A user-centred design (UCD) process was employed to design a prototype CDSS. Usability problems in information retrieval with the paper-based guideline were assessed by think-aloud analysis with 13 participants. Both simple and more complex tasks were applied. The analysis provided input for the UCD process of the prototype. The usability of the prototype CDSS was subsequently evaluated by think-aloud analysis with the same participants. Usability problems of the paper-based guideline and the prototype CDSS were compared by using the classification of usability problems scheme. In addition, efficiency (time to complete task) and effectiveness (completeness of retrieved screening procedures) of information retrieval of participants in the expert-driven paper-based guideline and the user-centred prototype CDSS were compared. RESULTS: Usability problems in both the paper-based guideline and the CDSS prototype were mainly classified as 'incongruent with participants' mental model'. The prototype CDSS reduced this type of problem from 17 to 6 problems. The time to perform simple information retrieval tasks increased by 58 s when using the prototype CDSS, however, it resulted in a 58% improvement in task completeness compared to the paper-based guideline. The time to perform complex scenarios decreased by 3:50 min with the prototype CDSS, with 17% higher completeness compared to the paper-based guideline. CONCLUSION: Analysis showed that usability problems experienced by healthcare practitioners when using a paper-based guideline could be overcome by implementing the guideline in a user-centred CDSS design. Although different types of usability problems were experienced with the prototype CDSS, they did not inhibit effective and efficient performance of tasks in the system. The usability problem analysis of the paper-based guideline effectively supported comparison of usability problems found in the two information retrieval systems and it supported the UCD of the CDSS.