Background: Supported by a supplement to our Clinical and Translational Science Award, we studied the feasibility of implementing clinical research in Northern Manhattan community practices that primarily serve Hispanic patients.Methods

Clinical research is the foundation for advancing the practice of medicine. However, the lack of seamless integration between clinical research and patient care workflow impedes recruitment efficiency, escalates research costs, and hence threatens the entire clinical research enterprise. Increased use of electronic health records (EHRs) holds promise for facilitating this integration but must surmount regulatory obstacles. Among the unintended consequences of current research oversight are barriers to accessing patient information for prescreening and recruitment, coordinating scheduling of clinical and research visits, and reconciling information about clinical and research drugs. We conclude that the EHR alone cannot overcome barriers in conducting clinical trials and comparative effectiveness research. Patient privacy and human subject protection policies should be clarified at the local level to exploit optimally the full potential of EHRs, while continuing to ensure participant safety. Increased alignment of policies that regulate the clinical and research use of EHRs could help fulfill the vision of more efficiently obtaining clinical research evidence to improve human health.

We describe a clinical research visit scheduling system that can potentially coordinate clinical research visits with patient care visits and increase efficiency at clinical sites where clinical and research activities occur simultaneously. Participatory Design methods were applied to support requirements engineering and to create this software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). Using a multi-user constraint satisfaction and resource optimization algorithm, IMPACT automatically synthesizes temporal availability of various research resources and recommends the optimal dates and times for pending research visits. We conducted scenario-based evaluations with 10 clinical research coordinators (CRCs) from diverse clinical research settings to assess the usefulness, feasibility, and user acceptance of IMPACT. We obtained qualitative feedback using semi-structured interviews with the CRCs. Most CRCs acknowledged the usefulness of IMPACT features. Support for collaboration within research teams and interoperability with electronic health records and clinical trial management systems were highly requested features. Overall, IMPACT received satisfactory user acceptance and proves to be potentially useful for a variety of clinical research settings. Our future work includes comparing the effectiveness of IMPACT with that of existing scheduling solutions on the market and conducting field tests to formally assess user adoption.

Underspecified user needs and frequent lack of a gold standard reference are typical barriers to technology evaluation. To address this problem, this paper presents a two-phase evaluation framework involving usability experts (phase 1) and end-users (phase 2). In phase 1, a cross-system functionality alignment between expert-derived user needs and system functions was performed to inform the choice of “the best available” comparison system to enable a cognitive walkthrough in phase 1 and a comparative effectiveness evaluation in phase 2. During phase 2, five quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are mixed to assess usability: time-motion analysis, software log, questionnaires – System Usability Scale and the Unified Theory of Acceptance of Use of Technology, think-aloud protocols, and unstructured interviews. Each method contributes data for a unique measure (e.g., time motion analysis contributes task-completion-time; software log contributes action transition frequency). The measures are triangulated to yield complementary insights regarding user-perceived ease-of-use, functionality integration, anxiety during use, and workflow impact. To illustrate its use, we applied this framework in a formative evaluation of a software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). We conclude that this mixed-methods evaluation framework enables an integrated assessment of user needs satisfaction and user-perceived usefulness and usability of a novel design. This evaluation framework effectively bridges the gap between co-evolving user needs and technology designs during iterative prototyping and is particularly useful when it is difficult for users to articulate their needs for technology support due to the lack of a baseline.