4.4 Article

A usability evaluation of four commercial dental computer-based patient record systems

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
卷 139, 期 12, 页码 1632-1642

出版社

AMER DENTAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0105

关键词

Usability; computer-based patient records; clinical information systems; evaluation; user interface

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [5T15LM07059-17, 1 KL2 RR024154-02]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The usability of dental computer-based patient record (CPR) systems has not been studied, despite early evidence that poor usability is a problem for dental CPR system users at multiple levels. Methods. The authors conducted formal usability tests of four dental CPR systems by using a purposive sample of four groups of five novice users. The authors measured task outcomes (correctly completed, incorrectly completed and incomplete) in each CPR system while the participants performed nine clinical documentation tasks, as well as the number of usability problems identified in each CPR system and their potential relationship to task outcomes. The authors reviewed the software application design aspects responsible for these usability problems. Results. The range for correctly completed tasks was 16 to 64 percent, for incorrectly completed tasks 18 to 38 percent and for incomplete tasks 9 to 47 percent. The authors identified 286 usability problems. The main types were three unsuccessful attempts, negative affect and task incorrectly completed. They also identified six problematic interface and interaction designs that led to usability problems. Conclusion. The four dental CPR systems studied have significant usability problems for novice users, resulting in a steep learning curve and potentially reduced system adoption. Clinical Implications. The significant number of data entry errors raises concerns about the quality of documentation in clinical practice.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据