DD-006 Comparative heuristic evaluation between two versions of a computerised physician order entry system

BackgroundComputerisation of drug prescription is an essential part of securing the management of patient care. However, errors related to computer misuse can be a source of iatrogenic injuries. These errors can be partly attributed to usability problems of computerised physician order entry (CPOE)....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice 2017-03, Vol.24 (Suppl 1), p.A112-A112
Hauptverfasser: Sharabi, M, Lecoeur, A, Marec, T Le, Mercier, F Le, Tritz, T
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page A112
container_issue Suppl 1
container_start_page A112
container_title European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice
container_volume 24
creator Sharabi, M
Lecoeur, A
Marec, T Le
Mercier, F Le
Tritz, T
description BackgroundComputerisation of drug prescription is an essential part of securing the management of patient care. However, errors related to computer misuse can be a source of iatrogenic injuries. These errors can be partly attributed to usability problems of computerised physician order entry (CPOE).PurposeIn 2014, our hospital started computerised prescription on the CPOE ORBIS NICE developed by AGFA Healthcare. Given the difficulties encountered during ORBIS NICE implementation, a new ergonomically redesigned version called ORBIS Mobile Edition (ME) was proposed in late 2015. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of drug prescription in these two versions.Material and methodsTwo pharmacists conducted a heuristic evaluation based on drug prescription in an orthopaedic surgery ward. They analysed all the screens appearing to prescribers during the prescribing process, from the connexion to the software to the prescription’s signing. Each usability problem (UP) observed was analysed based on the stage of the process according to ergonomic criteria defined by Bastien and Scapin.1 Then, a severity score was assigned to each UP from 1 (non-essential resolution) to 4 (catastrophic, imperative to fix).Results97 UPs were detected on ORBIS NICE with 70 (72%) strictly on the prescription part. The total average severity of these UPs was 3.0, considered a major severity. Catastrophic severity UPs were especially related to ‘drug search’. During the drug’s selection, the system sometimes automatically moved without the user’s control which increased the workload and the probability of making errors. Only 44 UPs were identified on ORBIS ME, including complete resolution of UP on stage ‘drug search’. However, 29 new UPs of average severity of 2.8 were observed on this version and the total average severity was the same between the two CPOE.ConclusionThe heuristic evaluation has highlighted a relative improvement in the ergonomics of ORBIS ME. However, several UPs with major to catastrophic severity have not been corrected and new UPs appeared in this version. Other user tests are intended to assess the satisfaction of prescribers with this new version.References and/or acknowledgements1. Bastien JMC, Scapin DL. A validation of ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Interact1992;4:183–96.No conflict of interest
doi_str_mv 10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-000640.246
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_bmj_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2552765435</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2552765435</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-b1005-1f23f3d81518018b9916df98ec51bec134c279bb16c613d2d508d12b169291ed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctOwzAQRSMEEhX0HyyxTvHYsWMvUctLqsQG1pYTT9RUzQM7aZUdG36UL8FVgSWrmbm6d0aakyQE6AKAy1vcbvqN9U3KKOQppVRmdMEyeZbMGM3yVGuZnf_1Ql4m8xDqggrOlc64niXNahVz8uvjc9k1vfV2qPdINjj6Ogx1SXBvd2MUu5YUOBwQWzIcOrJHH6IWSFcRS8oYHQeMEXSk30yhLmvbks479ATbwU8kTGHA5jq5qOwu4PynXiVvD_evy6d0_fL4vLxbpwVQKlKoGK-4UyBAUVCF1iBdpRWWAgosgWcly3VRgCwlcMecoMoBi7NmGtDxq-TmtLf33fuIYTDbbvRtPGmYECyXIuPiPxeonB9_JFV08ZOraLam93Vj_WSAmiMA8wvAHAGYEwATAfBvc5V8EQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1873338968</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>DD-006 Comparative heuristic evaluation between two versions of a computerised physician order entry system</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Sharabi, M ; Lecoeur, A ; Marec, T Le ; Mercier, F Le ; Tritz, T</creator><creatorcontrib>Sharabi, M ; Lecoeur, A ; Marec, T Le ; Mercier, F Le ; Tritz, T</creatorcontrib><description>BackgroundComputerisation of drug prescription is an essential part of securing the management of patient care. However, errors related to computer misuse can be a source of iatrogenic injuries. These errors can be partly attributed to usability problems of computerised physician order entry (CPOE).PurposeIn 2014, our hospital started computerised prescription on the CPOE ORBIS NICE developed by AGFA Healthcare. Given the difficulties encountered during ORBIS NICE implementation, a new ergonomically redesigned version called ORBIS Mobile Edition (ME) was proposed in late 2015. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of drug prescription in these two versions.Material and methodsTwo pharmacists conducted a heuristic evaluation based on drug prescription in an orthopaedic surgery ward. They analysed all the screens appearing to prescribers during the prescribing process, from the connexion to the software to the prescription’s signing. Each usability problem (UP) observed was analysed based on the stage of the process according to ergonomic criteria defined by Bastien and Scapin.1 Then, a severity score was assigned to each UP from 1 (non-essential resolution) to 4 (catastrophic, imperative to fix).Results97 UPs were detected on ORBIS NICE with 70 (72%) strictly on the prescription part. The total average severity of these UPs was 3.0, considered a major severity. Catastrophic severity UPs were especially related to ‘drug search’. During the drug’s selection, the system sometimes automatically moved without the user’s control which increased the workload and the probability of making errors. Only 44 UPs were identified on ORBIS ME, including complete resolution of UP on stage ‘drug search’. However, 29 new UPs of average severity of 2.8 were observed on this version and the total average severity was the same between the two CPOE.ConclusionThe heuristic evaluation has highlighted a relative improvement in the ergonomics of ORBIS ME. However, several UPs with major to catastrophic severity have not been corrected and new UPs appeared in this version. Other user tests are intended to assess the satisfaction of prescribers with this new version.References and/or acknowledgements1. Bastien JMC, Scapin DL. A validation of ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Interact1992;4:183–96.No conflict of interest</description><identifier>ISSN: 2047-9956</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2047-9964</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-000640.246</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: BMJ Publishing Group LTD</publisher><subject>Heuristic ; Order entry ; Usability</subject><ispartof>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2017-03, Vol.24 (Suppl 1), p.A112-A112</ispartof><rights>2017, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>Copyright: 2017 (c) 2017, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><rights>2017 2017, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sharabi, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lecoeur, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marec, T Le</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mercier, F Le</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tritz, T</creatorcontrib><title>DD-006 Comparative heuristic evaluation between two versions of a computerised physician order entry system</title><title>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</title><description>BackgroundComputerisation of drug prescription is an essential part of securing the management of patient care. However, errors related to computer misuse can be a source of iatrogenic injuries. These errors can be partly attributed to usability problems of computerised physician order entry (CPOE).PurposeIn 2014, our hospital started computerised prescription on the CPOE ORBIS NICE developed by AGFA Healthcare. Given the difficulties encountered during ORBIS NICE implementation, a new ergonomically redesigned version called ORBIS Mobile Edition (ME) was proposed in late 2015. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of drug prescription in these two versions.Material and methodsTwo pharmacists conducted a heuristic evaluation based on drug prescription in an orthopaedic surgery ward. They analysed all the screens appearing to prescribers during the prescribing process, from the connexion to the software to the prescription’s signing. Each usability problem (UP) observed was analysed based on the stage of the process according to ergonomic criteria defined by Bastien and Scapin.1 Then, a severity score was assigned to each UP from 1 (non-essential resolution) to 4 (catastrophic, imperative to fix).Results97 UPs were detected on ORBIS NICE with 70 (72%) strictly on the prescription part. The total average severity of these UPs was 3.0, considered a major severity. Catastrophic severity UPs were especially related to ‘drug search’. During the drug’s selection, the system sometimes automatically moved without the user’s control which increased the workload and the probability of making errors. Only 44 UPs were identified on ORBIS ME, including complete resolution of UP on stage ‘drug search’. However, 29 new UPs of average severity of 2.8 were observed on this version and the total average severity was the same between the two CPOE.ConclusionThe heuristic evaluation has highlighted a relative improvement in the ergonomics of ORBIS ME. However, several UPs with major to catastrophic severity have not been corrected and new UPs appeared in this version. Other user tests are intended to assess the satisfaction of prescribers with this new version.References and/or acknowledgements1. Bastien JMC, Scapin DL. A validation of ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Interact1992;4:183–96.No conflict of interest</description><subject>Heuristic</subject><subject>Order entry</subject><subject>Usability</subject><issn>2047-9956</issn><issn>2047-9964</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctOwzAQRSMEEhX0HyyxTvHYsWMvUctLqsQG1pYTT9RUzQM7aZUdG36UL8FVgSWrmbm6d0aakyQE6AKAy1vcbvqN9U3KKOQppVRmdMEyeZbMGM3yVGuZnf_1Ql4m8xDqggrOlc64niXNahVz8uvjc9k1vfV2qPdINjj6Ogx1SXBvd2MUu5YUOBwQWzIcOrJHH6IWSFcRS8oYHQeMEXSk30yhLmvbks479ATbwU8kTGHA5jq5qOwu4PynXiVvD_evy6d0_fL4vLxbpwVQKlKoGK-4UyBAUVCF1iBdpRWWAgosgWcly3VRgCwlcMecoMoBi7NmGtDxq-TmtLf33fuIYTDbbvRtPGmYECyXIuPiPxeonB9_JFV08ZOraLam93Vj_WSAmiMA8wvAHAGYEwATAfBvc5V8EQ</recordid><startdate>201703</startdate><enddate>201703</enddate><creator>Sharabi, M</creator><creator>Lecoeur, A</creator><creator>Marec, T Le</creator><creator>Mercier, F Le</creator><creator>Tritz, T</creator><general>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BTHHO</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201703</creationdate><title>DD-006 Comparative heuristic evaluation between two versions of a computerised physician order entry system</title><author>Sharabi, M ; Lecoeur, A ; Marec, T Le ; Mercier, F Le ; Tritz, T</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-b1005-1f23f3d81518018b9916df98ec51bec134c279bb16c613d2d508d12b169291ed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Heuristic</topic><topic>Order entry</topic><topic>Usability</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sharabi, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lecoeur, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marec, T Le</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mercier, F Le</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tritz, T</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>BMJ Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sharabi, M</au><au>Lecoeur, A</au><au>Marec, T Le</au><au>Mercier, F Le</au><au>Tritz, T</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>DD-006 Comparative heuristic evaluation between two versions of a computerised physician order entry system</atitle><jtitle>European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice</jtitle><date>2017-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>Suppl 1</issue><spage>A112</spage><epage>A112</epage><pages>A112-A112</pages><issn>2047-9956</issn><eissn>2047-9964</eissn><abstract>BackgroundComputerisation of drug prescription is an essential part of securing the management of patient care. However, errors related to computer misuse can be a source of iatrogenic injuries. These errors can be partly attributed to usability problems of computerised physician order entry (CPOE).PurposeIn 2014, our hospital started computerised prescription on the CPOE ORBIS NICE developed by AGFA Healthcare. Given the difficulties encountered during ORBIS NICE implementation, a new ergonomically redesigned version called ORBIS Mobile Edition (ME) was proposed in late 2015. The aim of this study was to compare the usability of drug prescription in these two versions.Material and methodsTwo pharmacists conducted a heuristic evaluation based on drug prescription in an orthopaedic surgery ward. They analysed all the screens appearing to prescribers during the prescribing process, from the connexion to the software to the prescription’s signing. Each usability problem (UP) observed was analysed based on the stage of the process according to ergonomic criteria defined by Bastien and Scapin.1 Then, a severity score was assigned to each UP from 1 (non-essential resolution) to 4 (catastrophic, imperative to fix).Results97 UPs were detected on ORBIS NICE with 70 (72%) strictly on the prescription part. The total average severity of these UPs was 3.0, considered a major severity. Catastrophic severity UPs were especially related to ‘drug search’. During the drug’s selection, the system sometimes automatically moved without the user’s control which increased the workload and the probability of making errors. Only 44 UPs were identified on ORBIS ME, including complete resolution of UP on stage ‘drug search’. However, 29 new UPs of average severity of 2.8 were observed on this version and the total average severity was the same between the two CPOE.ConclusionThe heuristic evaluation has highlighted a relative improvement in the ergonomics of ORBIS ME. However, several UPs with major to catastrophic severity have not been corrected and new UPs appeared in this version. Other user tests are intended to assess the satisfaction of prescribers with this new version.References and/or acknowledgements1. Bastien JMC, Scapin DL. A validation of ergonomic criteria for the evaluation of human-computer interfaces. Int J Hum Comput Interact1992;4:183–96.No conflict of interest</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>BMJ Publishing Group LTD</pub><doi>10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-000640.246</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2047-9956
ispartof European journal of hospital pharmacy. Science and practice, 2017-03, Vol.24 (Suppl 1), p.A112-A112
issn 2047-9956
2047-9964
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2552765435
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Heuristic
Order entry
Usability
title DD-006 Comparative heuristic evaluation between two versions of a computerised physician order entry system
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T18%3A17%3A42IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_bmj_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DD-006%E2%80%85Comparative%20heuristic%20evaluation%20between%20two%20versions%20of%20a%20computerised%20physician%20order%20entry%20system&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20hospital%20pharmacy.%20Science%20and%20practice&rft.au=Sharabi,%20M&rft.date=2017-03&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=Suppl%201&rft.spage=A112&rft.epage=A112&rft.pages=A112-A112&rft.issn=2047-9956&rft.eissn=2047-9964&rft_id=info:doi/10.1136/ejhpharm-2017-000640.246&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_bmj_p%3E2552765435%3C/proquest_bmj_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1873338968&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true