Computers, Medicine, Usability, viewed from the ED
If you're new here, you might like to look through this introduction to the site first.
Are you interested in how computers can reduce medical error?
Did you know that many early medical computer systems increased medical error? (Some current ones, too.)
From your own experience with your own computer at home, do you think that some computers and programs crash on a regular basis? Do you think that most software is hard to use, rude, and frustrating to work with? Based on experience, what you’ve heard, or simple extrapolation, do you suspect that medical computer systems are even worse?
Did you know that the best place to test medical computer systems is the ED, because people working in the ED don’t have the time to deal with bad computer systems, and are intolerant of BS? (If it works in the ED, you can make it work anywhere else in the hospital.)
Do you want to learn more about how to make medical computer systems usable, so as to prevent medical error?
If the answer to any of these questions is “yes,” then read through the Medical Computing series. Although looked at from my viewpoint in the ED, it all applies to medical computer systems wherever they are used, in a hospital, in a clinic or in an office.
If you need a backgrounder on Healthcare IT concepts and terminology, see Healthcare IT in a Nutshell.
There’s also a series of “word” essays that focus on particular and generally more advanced medical computer issues.
To keep up with new postings, you might want to subscribe to my RSS feed.
One final note: Once explained, most of the suggestions on this site seem simple and obvious. But as one is creating a program, or even as one is using a program with a high level of frustration, they are still not obvious until pointed out.
I hope you find the site informative and, perhaps, a bit mind-expandingly entertaining.
Keith Conover, M.D., FACEP
God is in the details
–Mies van der Rohe
The primary function of an ED tracking system – at least if you look at it from the right direction – is to display relevant, timely data to the user. A tracking system may do other things, but this function of data display is arguably its most important function. If a tracking system displays the wrong data, or outdated data, or is so poorly designed that users miss important data, then it’s not doing a good job.
Minard's Map of Napoleon's March to Moscow, courtesy Edward Tufte
So, we should focus on the way tracking systems display data, which falls squarely in the domain of information design. I’ve already discussed many of aspects of information design in the Medical Computing series, particularly to the first essay on Information Design, to which I will refer incessantly in this post. You may think of this as an executive summary of that series to date, with a few extensions and elaborations unique to tracking systems.
A good tracking system will meet all of the following criteria. A great tracking system will do so with panache and style. As far as I can tell, the best of today’s “niche” ED tracking systems (systems designed specifically for the ED) are not quite up to this standard, and the offerings of the big HIS (hospital information systems) vendors fall far below.
Users such as Donna, Bill, Jill, and Joyce must be able to, when they come up to the tracking system for the first time, be able to quickly and correctly learn how to use it: learnability. And, when they come back to it for the second, third and subsequent times, they must have retained what they learned that first day: memorability. And, it should be easy for them to accomplish their daily tasks using the tracking system: usability. These concepts are discussed in more detail in Usability, Learnability, Memorability. A tracking system that is usable, memorable, and learnable will be praised by its users, even if it only provides a few essential tracking functions. Read the rest of this entry »