1 / 51

Redesign of the Columbia University Infobutton Manager

Redesign of the Columbia University Infobutton Manager. James J. Cimino, Beth E. Friedmann, Kevin M. Jackson, Jianhua Li, Jenia Pevzner, Jesse Wrenn Department of Biomedical Informatics Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. Infobutton Manager Redesign.

izzy
Télécharger la présentation

Redesign of the Columbia University Infobutton Manager

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Redesign of the Columbia University Infobutton Manager James J. Cimino, Beth E. Friedmann, Kevin M. Jackson, Jianhua Li, Jenia Pevzner, Jesse Wrenn Department of Biomedical Informatics Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons

  2. Infobutton Manager Redesign • What is an infobutton manager? • Why does it need redesign (metrics)? • What methods were used? • What happened?

  3. Overview • Infobuttons – context specific links from one system (clinical) to another (resource)

  4. Overview • Infobutton Manager (IM) – provides a set of context-specific links • Infobuttons – context-specific links from one system (clinical) to another (resource)

  5. Overview • Utilization statistics from log files • Usage – how often is it used • “Selection rate” – when used, how often is topic selected • “Perusal time” – how long does it take to select a topic • Gold standard: Health Resources (HR) page • Infobuttons – context-specific links from one system (clinical) to another (resource) • Infobutton Manager (IM) – provides a set of context-specific links

  6. Overview • Utilization statistics from log files • Usage – how often is it used • “Selection rate” – when used, how often is topic selected • “Perusal time” – how long does it take to select a topic • Gold standard: Health Resources (HR) page • Infobuttons – context-specific links from one system (clinical) to another (resource) • Infobutton Manager (IM) – provides a set of context-specific links

  7. Usage through October 2006

  8. Selection Rate through October 2006

  9. Perusal Time through October 2006

  10. Methods • Navigation study of IM version 1 • Redesign of IM architecture • Redesign of user interface • Navigation study of IM version 2 • Log file analysis of actual use

  11. Navigation Study of IM Version 1 • Seven typical clinical questions from NLM • One diagnosis query • Two lab queries • Three in-patient medication queries • Three out-patient medication queries • “Does cranberry juice alter the action of warfarin?” • Subjects shown sample clinical system • Evoke IM version 1 • Attempt to answer the questions • Usability analysis software to record sessions (Morae)

  12. Redesign of IM Architecture • Version 1: CGI returned set of links (HTML) • Version 2: • Decouple user interface design from back end • Support platform-specific user interfaces

  13. Redesign of User Interface • Workflow (clicks): HR=many, IM=2 • Aesthetics: similar font, color, graphics, layout • Efficiency: • Scanability • Concise language • Keyword menus and buttons • Design consistency • Memorability (easy of reestablishing mastery) • IM version 1: • Many concepts • Questions vary with concept and context • Questions are lengthy • Scrolling often required

  14. Navigation Study of IM Version 2 • Repeated method used to study Version 1

  15. Log File Analysis of Actual Use • Logfile provides record of clicks on: • HR page • Links in HR page • Infobutton icons • Links in IM • Also provides immediate prior action • Time stamp, user, IP address

  16. Results • Navigation study of IM version 1 • Convenience sample of six clinicians • Long persual times • Review of sessions confirmed wordiness and layout inconsistency were factors • Redesign of IM Architecture: AJAX • Redesign of User Interface

  17. Results • Navigation study of IM version 1 • Convenience sample of six clinicians • Long persual times • Review of sessions confirmed wordiness and layout inconsistency were factors • Redesign of IM Architecture: AJAX • Redesign of User Interface • Redesign of User Interface: scanability, conciseness, keywords, consistency • Navigation study of IM version 2

  18. Perusal Times in Navigation Studies

  19. Results • Navigation study of IM version 1 • Convenience sample of six clinicians • Long persual times • Review of sessions confirmed wordiness and layout inconsistency were factors • Redesign of IM Architecture: AJAX • Redesign of User Interface: scanability, conciseness, keywords, consistency • Navigation study of IM version 2 • Log file analysis of actual use

  20. Usage through October 2006

  21. Usage through October 2007

  22. Selection Rate through October 2006

  23. Selection Rate through October 2007

  24. Perusal Time through October 2006

  25. Perusal Time through October 2007

  26. Average IM and HR Monthly Statistics

  27. Usage in Lab Contexts

  28. Usage in Out-Patient Drug Contexts

  29. Usage in In-Patient Drug Contexts

  30. Usage in Diagnosis Context

  31. Usage in Lab Order Entry Context

  32. Usage in InPat Drug Order Entry

  33. Selection Rate for OutPat Drug Context

  34. Selection Rate for InPat Drug Contexts

  35. Perusal Time for InPat Drug Contexts

  36. What Happened? • IM version 1 had a lower success rate and higher perusal time than the HR page • This was confirmed in the laboratory • Inspection of the user interface showed several possible problems • IM version 2 appears, on inspection, to address the observed problems • This was also confirmed in the laboratory • The field experience did not confirm the laboratory experience

  37. Why Did This Happen? • Execution time adds a few seconds • The HR page is static, while the IM is, by definition, dynamic • IM uses a different paradigm (pull-push) • Results varied by context, but not user type or level of experience • Actual users are different, however

  38. Total Users 1/07-10/07: 2933 HR3: 1408 IM3: 715 Users of HR vs. Users of IM HR<3, IM<3 1160 248

  39. Now What? • Educational e-mails • New user interface may improve question-answering time • Observational studies may be the only way to identify the rate-limiting step • IM approach remains more efficient • Users prefer IM over HR in some situations • Version 3 (thanks, AJAX!)

  40. Conclusions • Good user interface design principles work • Laboratory experience may not reflect reality • Users do invest extra effort • Selection rate and perusal time are not the only metrics of success

More Related