This article identifies sources of variation in clinical workflow and implications for the design and implementation of electronic clinical decision support. Sources of variation in workflow were identified via rapid ethnographic observation, focus groups, and interviews across a total of eight medical centers in both the Veterans Health Administration and academic medical centers nationally regarded as leaders in developing and using clinical decision support. Data were reviewed for types of variability within the social and technical subsystems and the external environment as described in the sociotechnical systems theory. Two researchers independently identified examples of variation and their sources, and then met with each other to discuss them until consensus was reached. Sources of variation were categorized as environmental (clinic staffing and clinic pace), social (perception of health information technology and real-time use with patients), or technical (computer access and information access). Examples of sources of variation within each of the categories are described and discussed in terms of impact on clinical workflow. As technologies are implemented, barriers to use become visible over time as users struggle to adapt workflow and work practices to accommodate new technologies. Each source of variability identified has implications for the effective design and implementation of useful health information technology. Accommodating moderate variability in workflow is anticipated to avoid brittle and inflexible workflow designs, while also avoiding unnecessary complexity for implementers and users.

BackgroundBased on barriers to the use of computerized clinical decision support (CDS) learned in an earlier field study, we prototyped design enhancements to the Veterans Health Administration's (VHA's) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening clinical reminder to compare against the VHA's current CRC reminder.MethodsIn a controlled simulation experiment, 12 primary care providers (PCPs) used prototypes of the current and redesigned CRC screening reminder in a within-subject comparison. Quantitative measurements were based on a usability survey, workload assessment instrument, and workflow integration survey. We also collected qualitative data on both designs.ResultsDesign enhancements to the VHA's existing CRC screening clinical reminder positively impacted aspects of usability and workflow integration but not workload. The qualitative analysis revealed broad support across participants for the design enhancements with specific suggestions for improving the reminder further.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the value of a human-computer interaction evaluation in informing the redesign of information tools to foster uptake, integration into workflow, and use in clinical practice.

No abstract

With the United States national goal and incentive program to transition from paper to electronic health records (EHRs), healthcare organizations are increasingly implementing EHRs and other related health information technology (IT). However, in institutions which have long adopted these computerized systems, such as the Veterans Health Administration, healthcare workers continue to rely on paper to complete their work. Furthermore, insufficient EHR design also results in computer-based workarounds. Using direct observation with opportunistic interviewing, we investigated the use of paper-and computerbased workarounds to the EHR with a multi-site study of 54 healthcare workers, including primary care providers, nurses, and other healthcare staff. Our analysis revealed several paper-and computer-based workarounds to the VA's EHR. These workarounds, including clinician-designed information tools, provide evidence for how to enhance the design of the EHR to better support the needs of clinicians.

This paper describes an effort to design and evaluate persuasive educational materials for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Although CRC screening is highly effective, screening rates in the US remain low. Educational materials represent one strategy for educating patients about screening options and increasing openness to screening. We developed a one-page brochure, leveraging factual information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and national guidelines, and strategies for persuasion from the human factors and behavioral economics literatures. We evaluated the resulting brochure with adults over the age of 50. Findings suggest that the educational brochure increases knowledge of CRC and screening options, and increases openness to screening. Furthermore, no significant difference was found between the new one-page brochure and an existing multi-page Screen for Life brochure recommended by the CDC. We interpret these findings as indication that the more practical and potentially less intimidating one-page brochure is as effective as the existing multi-page Screen for Life brochure.