I have often had to respond to those who claim that EHR's don't cause medical errors, users do. That subset of the health IT irrationally exuberant seem common in the health IT industry and pundit channels.
NIST (The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) has recently issued a draft report "NISTIR 7804: Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records." It is available at http://www.nist.gov/healthcare/usability/upload/Draft_EUP_09_28_11.pdf (PDF).
The report is quite negative concerning the low usability of today's commercial health IT, and recommends significant improvements that have been standard practice in other mission- and life-critical IT sectors for decades.
I will have more to write about this report, but I found a passage and footnote early in the report striking.
Of note, from the new NIST draft report:
This passage, from page 10:
"Blame the user" as the default, reflex reply to clinical IT-related medical errors, and the "hold vendor harmless for defects" clauses that facilitate this excuse are now heading to the junkpile - in the clinic, hospital, and courtroom.
It is my hope that the the Wild West, free-for-all, cavalier, get out of jail free days of the health IT industry are coming to a close.
Hint to health IT industry: you may actually need to invest in people who know what they're doing, instead of hiring the cheapest labor possible. (See, for example, my Aug. 2010 post
"EPIC's outrageous recommendations on healthcare IT project staffing" for more on that issue.)
-- SS
Oct. 25, 2011 Addendum:
This comment (#5, October 25th, 2011 at 12:38 pm) by "a practicing front-end designer and application developer" over at HIStalk is quite interesting. The writer points out the differences between designers and developers, and opines that:
In health IT, empathy for the patient as well, I might add.
-- SS
NIST (The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) has recently issued a draft report "NISTIR 7804: Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records." It is available at http://www.nist.gov/healthcare/usability/upload/Draft_EUP_09_28_11.pdf (PDF).
The report is quite negative concerning the low usability of today's commercial health IT, and recommends significant improvements that have been standard practice in other mission- and life-critical IT sectors for decades.
I will have more to write about this report, but I found a passage and footnote early in the report striking.
Of note, from the new NIST draft report:
This passage, from page 10:
The EUP (EHR usability protocol) emphasis should be on ensuring that necessary and sufficient usability validation and remediation has been conducted so that use error [3] is minimized.This passage describes what I have termed a mission hostile user experience.
[3] “Use error” is a term used very specifically to refer to user interface designs that will engender users to make errors of commission or omission. It is true that users do make errors, but many errors are due not to user error per se but due to designs that are flawed, e.g., poorly written messaging [or lack of messaging, e.g., no warnings of potentially dangerous actions - ed.], misuse of color-coding conventions, omission of information, etc.
"Blame the user" as the default, reflex reply to clinical IT-related medical errors, and the "hold vendor harmless for defects" clauses that facilitate this excuse are now heading to the junkpile - in the clinic, hospital, and courtroom.
It is my hope that the the Wild West, free-for-all, cavalier, get out of jail free days of the health IT industry are coming to a close.
Hint to health IT industry: you may actually need to invest in people who know what they're doing, instead of hiring the cheapest labor possible. (See, for example, my Aug. 2010 post
"EPIC's outrageous recommendations on healthcare IT project staffing" for more on that issue.)
-- SS
Oct. 25, 2011 Addendum:
This comment (#5, October 25th, 2011 at 12:38 pm) by "a practicing front-end designer and application developer" over at HIStalk is quite interesting. The writer points out the differences between designers and developers, and opines that:
If you’re going to improve vendor design, it has to begin with an internal commitment to value designers and what they contribute to the product development process. They can not be an afterthought. There are very few companies with this mindset. Almost all HIT companies are developer-driven, so the first thought, and one that is promoted in this report, is to turn developers into designers. This will not work! A developer and a designer require two fundamentally different skill sets that are not easily transposed. Developers are trained to think rationally and analytically; design requires empathy for the user.
In health IT, empathy for the patient as well, I might add.
-- SS
