4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Integrating users' activity modeling in the design and assessment of hospital electronic patient records:: the example of anesthesia

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS
卷 64, 期 2-3, 页码 157-171

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S1386-5056(01)00210-6

关键词

usability; electronic patient record; anesthesia; activity modeling; cognitive ergonomics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As computers become more and more an aid in the management of medical information, some specialists, such as anesthesiologists, demand tuned applications to support their own activity. The development of these specific applications is based upon the user's requirements analysis, and functional and technical specifications. But some failures show that a better understanding of human factors of acceptance could improve the usability and utility of these tools. In this study, we demonstrated that when the management of medical information is closely intertwined with the physician's activity, it is necessary to perform a precise analysis of this activity in order to identify the cognitive and organizational constraints that affect the usability and acceptance of the tool. We focused our study on the pre-operative anesthetic consultation. After recording and analyzing 50 consultations, we were able to identify the key points to fulfill in order to meet users' acceptance. From this study, we propose some strong recommendations to handle the constraints imposed by the anesthesiologists' activity in their daily working environment. We applied this method to evaluate an electronic patient record (EPR) for the pre-anesthetic consultation. The results of this evaluation validate our hypotheses and the importance of the activity constraints. In conclusion, human factors, and particularly those linked with the activity of healthcare professionals, have to be carefully studied before any development and installation of an EPR into a specialty domain. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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