Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Human Factors

Date Submitted: Oct 10, 2018
Date Accepted: Feb 27, 2019

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study

Blecker S, Pandya R, Stork S, Mann D, Kuperman G, Shelley D, Austrian JS

Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study

JMIR Hum Factors 2019;6(2):e12469

DOI: 10.2196/12469

PMID: 30994460

PMCID: 6492060

Usability analysis of interruptive versus non-interruptive clinical decision support

  • Saul Blecker; 
  • Rishi Pandya; 
  • Susan Stork; 
  • Devin Mann; 
  • Gilad Kuperman; 
  • Donna Shelley; 
  • Jonathan Saul Austrian

ABSTRACT

Background:

Clinical decision support (CDS) has been shown to improve compliance with evidence-based care but its impact is often diminished due to issues such as poor usability, insufficient integration into workflow, and alert fatigue. Non-interruptive CDS may be less subject to alert fatigue but there has been little assessment of its usability.

Objective:

To assess the comparative usability of an interruptive versus non-interruptive version of a CDS

Methods:

We conducted a usability study of a CDS tool that recommended prescribing an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor for inpatients with heart failure. We developed two versions of the CDS: an interruptive alert triggered at order entry and a non-interruptive alert listed in the sidebar of the electronic health record (EHR) screen. Inpatient providers were recruited and randomly assigned to use the interruptive followed by non-interruptive alert or vice versa in a laboratory setting. We asked providers to “think aloud” while using the CDS and then conducted a brief semi-structured interview about usability. We used a constant comparative analysis informed by the Five Rights of CDS framework to analyze usability testing.

Results:

Twelve providers participated in usability testing. Providers noted that the interruptive alert was readily noticed but generally impeded workflow. The non-interruptive alert was felt to be less annoying but had lower visibility which might reduce engagement. Provider role seemed to influence preferences; for instance, some providers who had more global responsibility for patients seemed to prefer the non-interruptive alert while more task-oriented providers generally preferred the interruptive alert.

Conclusions:

Providers expressed tradeoffs between impeding workflow and improving visibility with interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS. Two potential approaches to effective CDS may include targeting alerts by provider role or supplementing a non-interruptive alert with an occasional, well-timed interruptive alert.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Blecker S, Pandya R, Stork S, Mann D, Kuperman G, Shelley D, Austrian JS

Interruptive Versus Noninterruptive Clinical Decision Support: Usability Study

JMIR Hum Factors 2019;6(2):e12469

DOI: 10.2196/12469

PMID: 30994460

PMCID: 6492060

Per the author's request the PDF is not available.