2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-07293-7_67
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Usability Evaluation of an Electronic Health Record System for Nursing Documentation Used in the Municipality Healthcare Services in Norway

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Nurse Perception of the Usability of the KBC Solution Questionnaire was developed after extensive review of usability literature and IT issues identified in critical care settings [1-7,24-33] and was guided by the Davis Technology Acceptance Model [34], Nielsen usability heuristics [35], and Zhang and Walji usability principles [36]. The questionnaire includes 3 sections: (1) demographic data (eg, age, gender, employment status, and years of experience); (2) 37 rated items of a 5-point Likert-type scale of agreement; (3) and 3 open-ended questions to understand missing CPGs that nurses wish the system included and advantages and negative aspects of the KBC.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nurse Perception of the Usability of the KBC Solution Questionnaire was developed after extensive review of usability literature and IT issues identified in critical care settings [1-7,24-33] and was guided by the Davis Technology Acceptance Model [34], Nielsen usability heuristics [35], and Zhang and Walji usability principles [36]. The questionnaire includes 3 sections: (1) demographic data (eg, age, gender, employment status, and years of experience); (2) 37 rated items of a 5-point Likert-type scale of agreement; (3) and 3 open-ended questions to understand missing CPGs that nurses wish the system included and advantages and negative aspects of the KBC.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Complex user-interface and navigation mechanism, slow response, poor content design (Darbyshire, 2004;Kossman, 2006;Lee et al, 2008;Stevenson et al, 2010;Vatnøy et al, 2014;Weinhara et al, 2009;Whittaker et al, 2009). Moderate ease of use (Weinhara et al, 2009;Whittaker et al, 2009).…”
Section: Themes Summary Of Findings Usability Ease Of Use / Efficiencymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perceived usefulness: access to important patient care information and reduced written documentation (Hoonakker et al, 2013;Kossman, 2006;Vatnøy et al, 2014;Whittaker et al, 2009), improved information quality (Aktharsha & Anisa, 2011;Darbyshire, 2004;Tilahun & Fritz, 2015), enabled monitoring of patients' health parameters (Miller et al, 2009). Some functions were used less relevant, less frequently or never used (Darbyshire, 2004;Nakamura et al, 2010;Tilahun & Fritz, 2015).…”
Section: Usefulness / Effectivenessmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations