DEVELOPING A METHOD FOR IDENTIFYING AND REDUCING FUNCTIONAL DISCREPANCIES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Currently more than half of Electronic Health Record (EHR) projects fail. Most of these failures are not due to flawed technology, but rather due to the lack of systematic considerations of human issues. Among the barriers for EHR adoption, function mismatching among users, activities, and systems is a major area that has not been systematically addressed from a human-centered perspective. A theoretical framework called Functional Framework was developed for identifying and reducing functional discrepancies among users, activities, and systems. The Functional Framework is composed of three models – the User Model, the Designer Model, and the Activity Model. The User Model was developed by conducting a survey (N = 32) that identified the functions needed and desired from the user’s perspective. The Designer Model was developed by conducting a systemic review of an Electronic Dental Record (EDR) and its functions. The Activity Model was developed using an ethnographic method called shadowing where EDR users (5 dentists, 5 dental assistants, 5 administrative personnel) were followed quietly and observed for their activities. These three models were combined to form a unified model. From the unified model the work domain ontology was developed by asking users to rate the functions (a total of 190 functions) in the unified model along the dimensions of frequency and criticality in a survey. The functional discrepancies, as indicated by the regions of the Venn diagrams formed by the three models, were consistent with the survey results, especially with user satisfaction. The survey for the Functional Framework indicated the preference of one system over the other (R=0.895). The results of this project showed that the Functional Framework provides a systematic method for identifying, evaluating, and reducing functional discrepancies among users, systems, and activities. Limitations and generalizability of the Functional Framework were discussed.

Controlled Software Evaluation Methodology: Case Simulation and Cognitive User Analysis

Software for use with patient records is challenging to design and difficult to evaluate because of the tremendous variability of patient circumstances. A method was devised by the authors to overcome a number of difficulties. The method evaluates and compares objectively various software products for use in emergency departments and compares software to conventional methods like dictation and templated chart forms. The technique utilizes oral case simulation and video recording for analysis. The methodology and experiences of executing a study using this case simulation are discussed in this presentation.

Affect and cognition measures in preference-based decisions: Validity testing of the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale and a decision-specific anxiety measure with men eligible for prostate cancer screening

Background. At present, prostate cancer screening (PCS) guidelines require a discussion of risks, benefits, alternatives, and personal values, making decision aids an important tool to help convey information and to help clarify values. Objective: The overall goal of this study is to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of a PCS anxiety measure and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Methods. Using data from a randomized, controlled PCS decision aid trial that measured PCS anxiety at baseline and DCS at baseline (T0) and at two-weeks (T2), four psychometric properties were assessed: (1) internal consistency reliability, indicated by factor analysis intraclass correlations and Cronbach's α; (2) construct validity, indicated by patterns of Pearson correlations among subscales; (3) discriminant validity, indicated by the measure's ability to discriminate between undecided men and those with a definite screening intention; and (4) factor validity and invariance using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Results. The PCS anxiety measure had adequate internal consistency reliability and good construct and discriminant validity. CFAs indicated that the 3-factor model did not have adequate fit. CFAs for a general PCS anxiety measure and a PSA anxiety measure indicated adequate fit. The general PCS anxiety measure was invariant across clinics. The DCS had adequate internal consistency reliability except for the support subscale and had adequate discriminate validity. Good construct validity was found at the private clinic, but was only found for the feeling informed subscale at the public clinic. The traditional DCS did not have adequate fit at T0 or at T2. The alternative DCS had adequate fit at T0 but was not identified at T2. Factor loadings indicated that two subscales, feeling informed and feeling clear about values, were not distinct factors. Conclusions. Our general PCS anxiety measure can be used in PCS decision aid studies. The alternative DCS may be appropriate for men eligible for PCS. Implications: More emphasis needs to be placed on the development of PCS anxiety items relating to testing procedures. We recommend that the two DCS versions be validated in other samples of men eligible for PCS and in other health care decisions that involve uncertainty. ^

Translating knowledge into action: Information needs of decision-makers in healthcare

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the healthcare information needs of decision-makers in a local US healthcare setting in efforts to promote the translation of knowledge into action. The focus was on the perceptions and preferences of decision-makers regarding usable information in making decisions as to identify strategies to maximize the contribution of healthcare findings to policy and practice. Methods: This study utilized a qualitative data collection and analysis strategy. Data was collected via open-ended key-informant interviews from a sample of 37 public and private-sector healthcare decision-makers in the Houston/Harris County safety net. The sample was comprised of high-level decision-makers, including legislators, executive managers, service providers, and healthcare funders. Decision-makers were asked to identify the types of information, the level of collaboration with outside agencies, useful attributes of information, and the sources, formats/styles, and modes of information preferred in making important decisions and the basis for their preferences. Results: Decision-makers report acquiring information, categorizing information as usable knowledge, and selecting information for use based on the application of four cross-cutting thought processes or cognitive frameworks. In order of apparent preference, these are time orientation, followed by information seeking directionality, selection of validation processes, and centrality of credibility/reliability. In applying the frameworks, decision-makers are influenced by numerous factors associated with their perceptions of the utility of information and the importance of collaboration with outside agencies in making decisions as well as professional and organizational characteristics. Conclusion: An approach based on the elucidated cognitive framework may be valuable in identifying the reported contextual determinants of information use by decision-makers in US healthcare settings. Such an approach can facilitate active producer/user collaborations and promote the production of mutually valued, comprehensible, and usable findings leading to sustainable knowledge translation efforts long-term.^