Usability Methods for Ensuring Health Information Technology Safety: Evidence-Based Approaches Contribution of the IMIA Working Group Health Informatics for Patient Safety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Issues related to lack of system usability and potential safety hazards continue to be reported in the health information technology (HIT) literature. Usability engineering methods are increasingly used to ensure improved system usability and they are also beginning to be applied more widely for ensuring the safety of HIT applications. These methods are being used in the design and implementation of many HIT systems. In this paper we describe evidence-based approaches to applying usability engineering methods. METHODS: A multi-phased approach to ensuring system usability and safety in healthcare is described. Usability inspection methods are first described including the development of evidence-based safety heuristics for HIT. Laboratory-based usability testing is then conducted under artificial conditions to test if a system has any base level usability problems that need to be corrected. Usability problems that are detected are corrected and then a new phase is initiated where the system is tested under more realistic conditions using clinical simulations. This phase may involve testing the system with simulated patients. Finally, an additional phase may be conducted, involving a naturalistic study of system use under real-world clinical conditions. RESULTS: The methods described have been employed in the analysis of the usability and safety of a wide range of HIT applications, including electronic health record systems, decision support systems and consumer health applications. It has been found that at least usability inspection and usability testing should be applied prior to the widespread release of HIT. However, wherever possible, additional layers of testing involving clinical simulations and a naturalistic evaluation will likely detect usability and safety issues that may not otherwise be detected prior to widespread system release. CONCLUSION: The framework presented in the paper can be applied in order to develop more usable and safer HIT, based on multiple layers of evidence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.267 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.035 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".