The Relationship of Usability to Medical Error: An Evaluation of Errors Associated with Usability Problems in the Use of a Handheld Application for Prescribing Medications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an innovative approach to the evaluation of a handheld prescription writing application. Participants (10 physicians) were asked to perform a series of tasks involving entering prescriptions into the application from a medication list. The study procedure involved the collection of data consisting of transcripts of the subjects who were asked to "think aloud" while interacting with the prescription writing program to enter medications. All user interactions with the device were video and audio recorded. Analysis of the protocols was conducted in two phases: (1) usability problems were identified from coding of the transcripts and video data (2) actual errors in entering prescription data were also identified. The results indicated that there were a variety of usability problems, with most related to issues of ease of use. In addition, other problems were identified which were related to limitations of the content of the program. In examining the relationship between usability problems and errors, it was found that certain types of usability problems were closely associated with the occurrence of specific types of errors in prescription of medications. Implications for the improvement of safety of health care information systems are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".