Usability Challenges with Medical Software

by | Aug 28, 2015 | Medical, Personas, usability, UX

by Jonathan Knopf

 

Untitled

 

 

Whether you ask patients, physicians, or administrators, they all have the same overall opinion of the healthcare system. “Its all over the place.” Your typical radiologist and primary care physician likely have complete different workflows, communication channels, and software systems to document a patient’s care and clearly don’t communicate to each other.

Usability in healthcare is unique in that the creation of more usable systems not only saves time and money on development, but it can also save lives! Some of the usability problems apparent in electronic medical records (EMR) and electronic health records (EHR) include: violations of natural dialog, control consistency, effective use of language, effective information presentation, and customization principles, as well as a lack of error prevention, minimization of cognitive load, and feedback.

As both a UX/UI designer of medical software and a recent ACL reconstruction patient, I became aware of several usability challenges that make designing software for EMR/HER software quite complex. In this article, I will detail five challenges that I have observed and some recommendations for ensuring maximum user satisfaction.

 

  1. Legacy Software and Software Lifetime
    • This is one of the biggest roadblocks to user satisfaction as making UI improvements may ultimately lead to a Frankenstein software appearance; great UI components may stick out like a sore thumb when added to an old product. There is a lot of fear involved in improving the look and feel of medical software, particularly due to the risk of user error involved with unfamiliarity. This fear should not impede the progress of the product. Software suppliers could potentially risk more by not modernizing their software. Prior to rolling out a UI overhaul, make sure your users are on board with your changes. If not, make sure they have the ability to revert to a previous version (ex. “Modern View” vs. “Classic View”).
  1. Personas, Personas, Personas
    • In healthcare, personas are not primarily for patients, but rather for the specific types of health care providers who use software to treat their patients. The differences between how an admin uses EMR software and how a radiologist uses it are drastically different, both in motivators, features needed, and workflow. It is absolutely critical that you focus on identifying each provider’s persona so you can ensure that the software is providing optimal relevance, efficiency, and ease of use for their workflow. With so many abbreviations and acronyms in the medical world, make sure you are using terms that are familiar to all of your personas.
  1. UI Design Alignment and Customization
    • If you manage more than one UI with different features and workflows, you will need to consider the value of customizing vs. standardizing. Standardization is preferred, but maximizing workflow efficiency is likely more important to users than maintaining the same look and feel. Wherever possible, put your designs in front of your various personas and conduct UX research to determine their preferences and needs.
  1. Intuitiveness and Cognitive Load
    • One of the biggest issues with healthcare software comes from a lack of natural intuitiveness in designs and language. Interfaces should be designed to minimize the cognitive workload on users, not rely on them to follow instructions from a manual, which they seldom read. Elements should be positioned where they follow a simple logical order, provide clear feedback regarding next steps, and minimize the number of steps needed to complete an action.
  1. Error Handling
    • A usability concern that appears in every user facing system is its error handling. Make sure that your error messages are placed within the context of the error location, provide visual clues that an error has occurred, and show the user where the error is located. Visual error feedback should be displayed as soon as possible, not after a form has already been submitted. Provide clear and simple instructions as to how the error can be corrected and, where possible, do not allow the user to advance beyond the error point until it has been corrected. Error handling is another important component to put in front of users. Human factors testing can determine if the users see the messages and are able to take the necessary steps to correct them.

 

Key Lime Interactive is a usability research and augmented staffing agency capable of identifying any usability issues in medical devices and software since 2009. If you are experiencing some of these challenges with your medical device software and need a strategic roadmap for improvement, contact us at info@keylimeinteractive.com.

Transforming Healthcare: Medical Wearables

by | May 13, 2015 | Conferences, Medical, Wearables

by Nichole Dotson

pic 1Just as smartphones and tablets displaced the once-dominant PC, wearable technology has begun to take over the tech-scene. They have been projected to reach $4.5 billion in revenue this year and $53.2 billion in global retail revenue by 2019 (Juniper Research). These devices are popping up everywhere from smartwatches, fitness bracelets, and even smart-clothing and jewelry, but what if your wearable gadget could potentially save and/or prolong your life?
It is probably safe to say that we have all heard of, worn, or witnessed someone pic 2wearing an insulin pump, glucose monitor, hearing aids and/or prescription eye glasses, but we now live in a world where science fiction has turned reality. A world where contact lenses are embedded with microchips that monitor your health while improving your vision (Google and Novartis, “Smart Lens”). A vest that could save your life from sudden cardiac death (Zoll, “LifeVest”). A ‘build your own’ onesie that can detect your infant’s breathing and movement to help reduce SIDS (Mimo, “Smart Infant Monitor”). IBM, Apple, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson are even teaming up to develop the HIPAA-enabled “Watson Health Cloud” to collect the estimated million gigabytes of data per individual.
The age of wearable devices is upon us and a revolution in healthcare has emerged. Consumers, Physicians and the medical community, as well as investors, need to know that they can trust the data from the product, so accuracy and availability is essential! Since the risk of life or limb from a fitness bracelet is obviously not as high as the “LifeVest”, safety guidelines have already been drafted to regulate wearable tech devices, as well as the smartphone apps that accompany them.
pic 3The FDA released its initial draft guidance for General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices on January 20, 2015 and its draft guidance for Medical Device Data Systems, Medical Image Storage Devices, and Medical Image Communications Devices on February 9, 2015. This guidance identifies that they will not regulate “wellness” wearables that encourage a healthy lifestyle or reduce the risk of developing a chronic disease, but wearable Medical Devices that claim to treat, diagnose, or restore a structure or impaired function due to a disease, however, are regulated the same as all other medical devices and do require FDA approval. Basically, your Fitbit isn’t going to be regulated by the FDA as long as its claims are preventative and in a low-risk category. The FDA’s intention is to continue to focus their resources on technology products that pose a higher risk.
These devices offer numerous solutions to patients as well as to physicians and home healthcarepic 4 professionals, equipping them with tools to track and manage the patients’ health information easily and effectively – ranging from medical and safety critical, to leisure and entertainment. In the case of medical and safety critical, this creates unique concerns and imposes new constraints that existing human factors theories may not fully support.

General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices (Draft Guidance) (January 20, 2015)
Medical Device Accessories: Defining Accessories and Classification Pathway for New Accessory Types (Draft Guidance) (January 20, 2015)
Medical Device Data Systems, Medical Image Storage Devices, and Medical Image Communications Devices (Final Guidance) (February 9, 2015)
Mobile Medical Applications (Final Guidance) (February 9, 2015)