Usability of a novel clinician interface for genetic results

The complexity and rapid growth of genetic data demand investment in information technology to support effective use of this information. Creating infrastructure to communicate genetic information to healthcare providers and enable them to manage that data can positively affect a patient's care in many ways. However, genetic data are complex and present many challenges. We report on the usability of a novel application designed to assist providers in receiving and managing a patient's genetic profile, including ongoing updated interpretations of the genetic variants in those patients. Because these interpretations are constantly evolving, managing them represents a challenge. We conducted usability tests with potential users of this application and reported findings to the application development team, many of which were addressed in subsequent versions. Clinicians were excited about the value this tool provides in pushing out variant updates to providers and overall gave the application high usability ratings, but had some difficulty interpreting elements of the interface. Many issues identified required relatively little development effort to fix suggesting that consistently incorporating this type of analysis in the development process can be highly beneficial. For genetic decision support applications, our findings suggest the importance of designing a system that can deliver the most current knowledge and highlight the significance of new genetic information for clinical care. Our results demonstrate that using a development and design process that is user focused helped optimize the value of this application for personalized medicine.

[1]  John B. Smelcer,et al.  Usability of electronic medical records , 2009 .

[2]  Robert A. Virzi,et al.  Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects Is Enough? , 1992 .

[3]  Philip T. Kortum,et al.  Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale , 2009 .

[4]  Eric G. Poon,et al.  Research Paper: The Extent and Importance of Unintended Consequences Related to Computerized Provider Order Entry , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[5]  W. Grody,et al.  ACMG recommendations for standards for interpretation and reporting of sequence variations: Revisions 2007 , 2008, Genetics in Medicine.

[6]  Elaine Lyon,et al.  The GeneInsight suite: a platform to support laboratory and provider use of DNA‐based genetic testing , 2011, Human mutation.

[7]  Han de Vries,et al.  Are electronic health records ready for genomic medicine? , 2009, Genetics in Medicine.

[8]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[9]  Vimla L. Patel,et al.  Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems , 2004, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[10]  Joseph F. Dumas,et al.  A Practical Guide to Usability Testing , 1993 .

[11]  Heidi L Rehm,et al.  Use and interpretation of genetic tests in cardiovascular genetics , 2010, Heart.

[12]  Stephanie Rosenbaum,et al.  Usability in Practice: user experience lifecycle - evolution and revolution , 2002, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[13]  Heidi L. Rehm,et al.  Communicating new knowledge on previously reported genetic variants , 2012, Genetics in Medicine.

[14]  L. Hayden,et al.  Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of Evidence-based Medicine a Reality , 2011 .

[15]  C. Morton,et al.  Structural genomic variation and personalized medicine. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  Matthew S. Lebo,et al.  Development and validation of a computational method for assessment of missense variants in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. , 2011, American journal of human genetics.

[17]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic Evaluation of Prototypes (individual) , 2022 .

[18]  John W Gosbee,et al.  Conclusion: You need human factors engineering expertise to see design hazards that are hiding in "plain sight!". , 2004, Joint Commission journal on quality and safety.

[19]  F. Collins,et al.  The path to personalized medicine. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Measuring usability: preference vs. performance , 1994, CACM.

[21]  Svetlana Z. Lowry,et al.  NIST guide to the processes approach for improving the usability of electronic health records , 2010 .

[22]  Lidewij Henneman,et al.  Deficiency of knowledge of genetics and genetic tests among general practitioners, gynecologists, and pediatricians: A global problem , 2005, Genetics in Medicine.

[23]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability inspection methods , 1994, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[24]  Robert W. Bailey,et al.  Performance vs. Preference , 1993 .

[25]  Alissa L. Russ,et al.  Current Challenges and Opportunities for Better Integration of Human Factors Research with Development of Clinical Information Systems , 2009, Yearbook of Medical Informatics.

[26]  Michelle L. Rogers,et al.  Usability Testing and the Relation of Clinical Information Systems to Patient Safety , 2005 .

[27]  Blake Ives,et al.  An empirical study of the impact of user involvement on system usage and information satisfaction , 1986, CACM.

[28]  Robert L. Wears,et al.  Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities , 2010, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[29]  Monique W. M. Jaspers,et al.  The think aloud method: a guide to user interface design , 2004, Int. J. Medical Informatics.