Retrospective analysis of the human-centered design process used to develop a clinical decision support in the emergency department: PE Dx Study Part 2

Design as a quality improvement strategy: The case for design expertise

Bad design in safety-critical environments like healthcare can lead to users being frustrated, excluded or injured. In contrast, good design can make it easier to use a service correctly, with impacts on both the safety and efficiency of healthcare delivery, as well as the experience of patients and staff. The participative dimension of design as an improvement strategy has recently gained traction in the healthcare quality improvement literature. However, the role of design expertise and professional design has been much less explored. Good design does not happen by accident: it takes expertise and the specific reasoning that expert designers develop through practical experience and training. Here, we define design, show why poor design can be disastrous and illustrate the benefits of good design. We argue for the recognition of distinctive design expertise and describe some of its characteristics. Finally, we discuss how design could be better promoted in healthcare improvement.

Post-implementation usability evaluation of a human factors-based clinical decision support for pulmonary embolism (PE) diagnosis (Dx): PE Dx Study Part 1

While there is promise for health IT, such as Clinical Decision Support (CDS), to improve patient safety and clinician efficiency, poor usability has hindered widespread use of these tools. Human Factors (HF) principles and methods remain the gold standard for health IT design; however, there is limited information on how HF methods and principles influence CDS usability "in the wild". In this study, we explore the usability of an HF-based CDS used in the clinical environment; the CDS was designed according to a human-centered design process, which is described in Carayon et al. (2020). In this study, we interviewed 12 emergency medicine physicians, identifying 294 excerpts of barriers and facilitators of the CDS. Sixty-eight percent of excerpts related to the HF principles applied in the human-centered design of the CDS. The remaining 32% of excerpts related to 18 inductively-created categories, which highlight gaps in the CDS design process. Several barriers were related to the physical environment and organization work system elements as well as physicians' broader workflow in the emergency department (e.g., teamwork). This study expands our understanding of the usability outcomes of HF-based CDS "in the wild". We demonstrate the value of HF principles in the usability of CDS and identify areas for improvement to future human-centered design of CDS. The relationship between these usability outcomes and the HCD process is explored in an accompanying Part 2 manuscript.