No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Pilot Testing of Simulation in the Evaluation of a Novel, Rapidly Deployable Electronic Health Record for use in Disaster Intensive Care
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 October 2021
Abstract
Objectives:
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the need for rapid creation and management of ICU field hospitals with effective remote monitoring which is dependent on the rapid deployment and integration of an Electronic Health Record (EHR). We describe the use of simulation to evaluate a rapidly scalable hub-and-spoke model for EHR deployment and monitoring using asynchronous training.
Methods:
We adapted existing commercial EHR products to serve as the point of entry from a simulated hospital and a separate system for tele-ICU support and monitoring of the interfaced data. To train our users we created a modular video-based curriculum to facilitate asynchronous training. Effectiveness of the curriculum was assessed through completion of common ICU documentation tasks in a high-fidelity simulation. Additional endpoints include assessment of EHR navigation, user satisfaction (Net Promoter), system usability (System Usability Scale-SUS), and cognitive load (NASA-TLX).
Results:
A total of 5 participants achieved a 100% task completion on all domains except ventilator data (91%). Systems demonstrated high degrees of satisfaction (Net Promoter = 65.2), acceptable usability (SUS = 66.5), and acceptable cognitive load (NASA-TLX = 41.5); with higher levels of cognitive load correlating with the number of screens employed.
Conclusions:
Clinical usability of a comprehensive and rapidly deployable EHR was acceptable in an intensive care simulation which was preceded by < 1 hour of video education about the EHR. This model should be considered in plans for integrated clinical response with remote and accessory facilities.
- Type
- Original Research
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc
References
Murthy, S, Gomersall, CD, Fowler, RA. Care for critically ill patients with COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(15):1499-1500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Remuzzi, A, Remuzzi, G. COVID-19 and Italy: What next? Lancet. 2020;395(10231):1225-1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aziz, S, Arabi, YM, Alhazzani, W, et al. Managing ICU surge during the COVID-19 crisis: Rapid guidelines. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(7):1303-1325.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Booth, CM, Stewart, TE. Communication in the Toronto critical care community: Important lessons learned during SARS. Crit Care. 2003;7(6):405-406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dave, A, Cagniart, K, Holtkamp, MD. A case for telestroke in Military medicine: A retrospective analysis of stroke cost and outcomes in U.S. military health-care system. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2018;27(8):2277-2284.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sossai, P, Uguccioni, S, Casagrande, S. Telemedicine and the 2019 coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Int J Clin Pract. 2020;74(10):e13592.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stephenson, LS, Gorsuch, A, Hersh, WR, Mohan, V, Gold, JA. Participation in EHR based simulation improves recognition of patient safety issues. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakata, KK, Stephenson, LS, Mulanax, A, et al. Professional and interprofessional differences in electronic health records use and recognition of safety issues in critically ill patients. J Interprof Care. 2016;30(5):636-642.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bordley, J, Sakata, KK, Bierman, J, et al. Use of a novel, electronic health record-centered, interprofessional ICU rounding simulation to understand latent safety issues. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(10):1570-1576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, JA, Tutsch, AS, Gorsuch, A, Mohan, V. Integrating the electronic health record into high-fidelity interprofessional intensive care unit simulations. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(6):562-563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, ME, Scholl, G, Corby, S, Mohan, V, Gold, JA. The impact of electronic health record-based simulation during intern boot camp: Interventional study. JMIR Med Educ. 2021;7(1):e25828.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moroney, WF, Biers, DW, Eggemeier, FT, Mitchell, JA. A comparison of two scoring procedures with the NASA task load index in a simulated flight task. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the IEEE 1992 National Aerospace And Electronics Conference (NAECON) 1992; Dayton, OH.Google Scholar
Collins, SA, Bakken, S, Vawdrey, DK, Coiera, E, Currie, L. Clinician preferences for verbal communication compared to EHR documentation in the ICU. Appl Clin Inform. 2011;2(2):190-201.Google ScholarPubMed
Collins, SA, Stein, DM, Vawdrey, DK, Stetson, PD, Bakken, S. Content overlap in nurse and physician handoff artifacts and the potential role of electronic health records: A systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2011;44(4):704-712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gold, JA, Stephenson, LE, Gorsuch, A, Parthasarathy, K, Mohan, V. Feasibility of utilizing a commercial eye tracker to assess electronic health record use during patient simulation. Health Informatics J. 2016;22(3):744-757.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnick, ER, Harry, E, Sinsky, CA, et al. Perceived electronic health record usability as a predictor of task load and burnout among US physicians: Mediation analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e23382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Melnick, ER, Dyrbye, LN, Sinsky, CA, et al. The association between perceived electronic health record usability and professional burnout among US physicians. Mayo Clin Proc. 2020;95(3):476-487.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brooke, J. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan, PW, Thomas, B, Weerdmeester, BA, McClelland, IL, eds. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996:189-194.Google Scholar
Hart, SG. Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting. 2006;50(9):904-908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, A, Chandra, S, Herasevich, V, Gajic, O, Pickering, BW. The effect of two different electronic health record user interfaces on intensive care provider task load, errors of cognition, and performance. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(7):1626-1634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hudson, D, Kushniruk, AW, Borycki, EM. Using the NASA task load index to assess workload in electronic medical records. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2015;208:190-194.Google ScholarPubMed
Lilly, CM, Cody, S, Zhao, H, et al. Hospital mortality, lengthof stay, and preventable complications among critically ill patients before andafter tele-ICU reengineering of critical care processes. JAMA. 2011;305(21):2175-2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, MD, Elhage, SA, Green, JM, Sachdev, G. Surgery residents spend nearly 8 months of their 5-year training on the electronic health record (EHR). J Surg Educ. 2020;77(6):e237-e244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Applebury et al. supplementary material
Figure S1
Image
91 KB
Applebury et al. supplementary material
Table S1
File
13.5 KB