Evaluating the Usability of an Emergency Department After Visit Summary: Staged Heuristic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Heuristic evaluations, while commonly used, may inadequately capture the severity of identified usability issues. In the domain of health care, usability issues can pose different levels of risk to patients. Incorporating diverse expertise (eg, clinical and patient) in the heuristic evaluation process can help assess and address potential negative impacts on patient safety that may otherwise go unnoticed. One document that should be highly usable for patients-with the potential to prevent adverse outcomes-is the after visit summary (AVS). The AVS is the document given to a patient upon discharge from the emergency department (ED), which contains instructions on how to manage symptoms, medications, and follow-up care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess a multistage method for integrating diverse expertise (ie, clinical, an older adult care partner, and health IT) with human factors engineering (HFE) expertise in the usability evaluation of the patient-facing ED AVS. METHODS: We conducted a three-staged heuristic evaluation of an ED AVS using heuristics developed for use in evaluating patient-facing documentation. In stage 1, HFE experts reviewed the AVS to identify usability issues. In stage 2, 6 experts of varying expertise (ie, emergency medicine physicians, ED nurses, geriatricians, transitional care nurses, and an older adult care partner) rated each previously identified usability issue on its potential impact on patient comprehension and patient safety. Finally, in stage 3, an IT expert reviewed each usability issue to identify the likelihood of successfully addressing the issue. RESULTS: In stage 1, we identified 60 usability issues that violated a total of 108 heuristics. In stage 2, 18 additional usability issues that violated 27 heuristics were identified by the study experts. Impact ratings ranged from all experts rating the issue as "no impact" to 5 out of 6 experts rating the issue as having a "large negative impact." On average, the older adult care partner representative rated usability issues as being more significant more of the time. In stage 3, 31 usability issues were rated by an IT professional as "impossible to address," 21 as "maybe," and 24 as "can be addressed." CONCLUSIONS: Integrating diverse expertise when evaluating usability is important when patient safety is at stake. The non-HFE experts, included in stage 2 of our evaluation, identified 23% (18/78) of all the usability issues and, depending on their expertise, rated those issues as having differing impacts on patient comprehension and safety. Our findings suggest that, to conduct a comprehensive heuristic evaluation, expertise from all the contexts in which the AVS is used must be considered. Combining those findings with ratings from an IT expert, usability issues can be strategically addressed through redesign. Thus, a 3-staged heuristic evaluation method offers a framework for integrating context-specific expertise efficiently, while providing practical insights to guide human-centered design.

Interventions to prevent injuries in construction workers.

BACKGROUND: Construction workers are frequently exposed to various types of injury-inducing hazards. There are a number of injury prevention interventions, yet their effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for preventing injuries in construction workers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's specialised register, CENTRAL (issue 3), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO up to April 2017. The searches were not restricted by language or publication status. We also handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after (CBA) studies and interrupted time-series (ITS) of all types of interventions for preventing fatal and non-fatal injuries among workers at construction sites. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed their risk of bias. For ITS studies, we re-analysed the studies and used an initial effect, measured as the change in injury rate in the year after the intervention, as well as a sustained effect, measured as the change in time trend before and after the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen studies (14 ITS and 3 CBA studies) met the inclusion criteria in this updated version of the review. The ITS studies evaluated the effects of: introducing or changing regulations that laid down safety and health requirements for the construction sites (nine studies), a safety campaign (two studies), a drug-free workplace programme (one study), a training programme (one study), and safety inspections (one study) on fatal and non-fatal occupational injuries. One CBA study evaluated the introduction of occupational health services such as risk assessment and health surveillance, one evaluated a training programme and one evaluated the effect of a subsidy for upgrading to safer scaffoldings. The overall risk of bias of most of the included studies was high, as it was uncertain for the ITS studies whether the intervention was independent from other changes and thus could be regarded as the main reason of change in the outcome. Therefore, we rated the quality of the evidence as very low for all comparisons.Compulsory interventionsRegulatory interventions at national or branch level may or may not have an initial effect (effect size (ES) of -0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.08 to 1.41) and may or may not have a sustained effect (ES -0.03; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.24) on fatal and non-fatal injuries (9 ITS studies) due to highly inconsistent results (I² = 98%). Inspections may or may not have an effect on non-fatal injuries (ES 0.07; 95% CI -2.83 to 2.97; 1 ITS study).Educational interventionsSafety training interventions may result in no significant reduction of non-fatal injuries (1 ITS study and 1 CBA study).Informational interventionsWe found no studies that had evaluated informational interventions alone such as campaigns for risk communication.Persuasive interventionsWe found no studies that had evaluated persuasive interventions alone such as peer feedback on workplace actions to increase acceptance of safe working methods.Facilitative interventionsMonetary subsidies to companies may lead to a greater decrease in non-fatal injuries from falls to a lower level than no subsidies (risk ratio (RR) at follow-up: 0.93; 95% CI 0.30 to 2.91 from RR 3.89 at baseline; 1 CBA study).Multifaceted interventionsA safety campaign intervention may result in an initial (ES -1.82; 95% CI -2.90 to -0.74) and sustained (ES -1.30; 95% CI -1.79 to -0.81) decrease in injuries at the company level (1 ITS study), but not at the regional level (1 ITS study). A multifaceted drug-free workplace programme at the company level may reduce non-fatal injuries in the year following implementation by -7.6 per 100 person-years (95% CI -11.2 to -4.0) and in the years thereafter by -2.0 per 100 person-years (95% CI -3.5 to -0.5) (1 ITS study). Introducing occupational health services may result in no decrease in fatal or non-fatal injuries (one CBA study). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of interventions to adopt safety measures recommended by standard texts on safety, consultants and safety courses have not been adequately evaluated. There is very low-quality evidence that introducing regulations as such may or may not result in a decrease in fatal and non-fatal injuries. There is also very low-quality evidence that regionally oriented safety campaigns, training, inspections or the introduction of occupational health services may not reduce non-fatal injuries in construction companies. There is very low-quality evidence that company-oriented safety interventions such as a multifaceted safety campaign, a multifaceted drug workplace programme and subsidies for replacement of scaffoldings may reduce non-fatal injuries among construction workers. More studies, preferably cluster-randomised controlled trials, are needed to evaluate different strategies to increase the employers' and workers' adherence to the safety measures prescribed by regulation.

Inpatient Portals for Hospitalized Patients and Caregivers: A Systematic Review.

Patient portals, web-based personal health records linked to electronic health records (EHRs), provide patients access to their healthcare information and facilitate communication with providers. Growing evidence supports portal use in ambulatory settings; however, only recently have portals been used with hospitalized patients. Our objective was to review the literature evaluating the design, use, and impact of inpatient portals, which are patient portals designed to give hospitalized patients and caregivers inpatient EHR clinical information for the purpose of engaging them in hospital care. Literature was reviewed from 2006 to 2017 in PubMed, Web of Science, CINALPlus, Cochrane, and Scopus to identify English language studies evaluating patient portals, engagement, and inpatient care. Data were analyzed considering the following 3 themes: inpatient portal design, use and usability, and impact. Of 731 studies, 17 were included, 9 of which were published after 2015. Most studies were qualitative with small samples focusing on inpatient portal design; 1 nonrandomized trial was identified. Studies described hospitalized patients' and caregivers' information needs and design recommendations. Most patient and caregiver participants in included studies were interested in using an inpatient portal, used it when offered, and found it easy to use and/or useful. Evidence supporting the role of inpatient portals in improving patient and caregiver engagement, knowledge, communication, and care quality and safety is limited. Included studies indicated providers had concerns about using inpatient portals; however, the extent to which these concerns have been realized remains unclear. Inpatient portal research is emerging. Further investigation is needed to optimally design inpatient portals to maximize potential benefits for hospitalized patients and caregivers while minimizing unintended consequences for healthcare teams.