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: May 6, 2024
Date Accepted: May 12, 2025

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

Leveraging Dual Usability Methods to Evaluate Clinical Decision Support Among Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: Mixed Methods Study

Rizvi RF, Faisal S, Sussman M, Mendlick P, Brown S, Lindemann E, Keiser J, Kalra M, Switzer S, Melton-Meaux GB, Tignanelli CJ

Leveraging Dual Usability Methods to Evaluate Clinical Decision Support Among Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: Mixed Methods Study

JMIR Hum Factors 2025;12:e60268

DOI: 10.2196/60268

PMID: 40737617

PMCID: 12310145

Leveraging Dual Usability Methods to Evaluate Clinical Decision Support among Traumatic Brain Injury Patients

  • Rubina F. Rizvi; 
  • Sameen Faisal; 
  • Mark Sussman; 
  • Patricia Mendlick; 
  • Sam Brown; 
  • Elizabeth Lindemann; 
  • Jeremy Keiser; 
  • Manish Kalra; 
  • Sean Switzer; 
  • Genevieve B. Melton-Meaux; 
  • Christopher J. Tignanelli

ABSTRACT

Background:

Traumatic brain injury patients (TBI) are at increased risk of developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) may improve the utilization of VTE prophylaxis protocols yet suffer from poor compliance among end-users due to a lack of user-centered design.

Objective:

The objective of this research work was to improve the content, design, and workflow integration of a TBI-CDSS based on feedback from the experts and end-users.

Methods:

The CDSS was evaluated leveraging a dual usability approach. A set of usability experts (N=3) and trauma providers (N=5) performed the heuristic evaluation (HE) and end-user testing (E-UT). Data was collected through triangulation of methods and analyzed using qualitative (thematic) and quantitative (descriptive) analyses.

Results:

We identified 145 total issues across both methods with 66 being unique i.e., 17 issues found by HE, 43 by E-UT, and 6 common ones. Thematic analysis was conducted on the unique issues (66) and was assigned to themes and subsequent sub-themes. We identified 13 unique themes. The three most identified themes were lack of supporting evidence (17 issues, representing 26% of the 66 issues), operational barriers arising from the test environment (11,17%), formatting inconsistencies, and lack of following standards (8, 12 %). The system's usability scale survey (SUS) score was 77.5 (std dev ±16) interpreted as an acceptable/good usability range.

Conclusions:

Combining expert and end-user-driven usability evaluation methods led to the identification of a more comprehensive list of issues. This can facilitate the optimization of the TBI-CDSS, resulting in improved usability and care management. Clinical Trial: This component of the project is not a clinical trial. The study protocol was submitted to the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board and given the determination of “Exempt” as secondary research for which consent is not required. The mixed methods investigation was given the determination of “Not Human Research” as a quality improvement activity.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Rizvi RF, Faisal S, Sussman M, Mendlick P, Brown S, Lindemann E, Keiser J, Kalra M, Switzer S, Melton-Meaux GB, Tignanelli CJ

Leveraging Dual Usability Methods to Evaluate Clinical Decision Support Among Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: Mixed Methods Study

JMIR Hum Factors 2025;12:e60268

DOI: 10.2196/60268

PMID: 40737617

PMCID: 12310145

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.