1 / 15

QCopi Q uality C ontrol o f p atient i nformation Final Presentation December 4, 2002

QCopi Q uality C ontrol o f p atient i nformation Final Presentation December 4, 2002. Anna Tsukerman Elizabeth Yang Jack Li Matthew Lee Sarah Boaz. Overview. Overall Problem and Solution How we got to the final UI? Lo Fi Prototype Interactive Prototype Final Prototype User Study

Download Presentation

QCopi Q uality C ontrol o f p atient i nformation Final Presentation December 4, 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. QCopiQuality Control of patient informationFinal PresentationDecember 4, 2002 Anna Tsukerman Elizabeth Yang Jack Li Matthew Lee Sarah Boaz

  2. Overview • Overall Problem and Solution • How we got to the final UI? • Lo Fi Prototype • Interactive Prototype • Final Prototype • User Study • Final study description and experimental design • Results • Conclusions

  3. Overall Problem and Solution • How can we simplify the complexity of maintaining the quality of patient’s records, for medics? • We offer a friendly front-end interface for automating this administrative task. • The medics will be able to then improve accuracy and efficiency of maintaining records.

  4. Lo Fi Prototype • Our Lo Fi prototype automated the task of reviewing the charts for completeness • We first designed an interface that would check the completeness of the charts in the database • When we tested the lo-fi prototype on a representative medic, she could not easily locate the completeness warnings, so we made the warnings clearer for the next implementation

  5. Initial Prototype • We solved the previous problem by highlighting the warnings section. • Three major problems found through Heuristic Evaluation • System forces user to make update • The user could only exit from the Index Page • Unclear representation of status

  6. Final Prototype – HE and Solutions • System forces user to make updates when exiting chart • Major design change of adding edit/view modes • User could only exit from the index page • Added exits, and exit checks at every screen • Unclear mapping of status numbers and their meanings • Conversion to a three value status representation

  7. Final Prototype – HE and Solutions • System forces user to make updates when exiting chart • Major design change of adding edit/view modes • User could only exit from the index page • Added exits, and exit checks at every screen • Unclear mapping of status numbers and their meanings • Conversion to a three value status representation

  8. Final Prototype – HE and Solutions • System forces user to make updates when exiting chart • Major design change of adding edit/view modes • User could only exit from the index page • Added exits, and exit checks at every screen • Unclear mapping of status numbers and their meanings • Conversion to a three value status representation

  9. Final Prototype – HE and Solutions • System forces user to make updates when exiting chart • Major design change of adding edit/view modes • User could only exit from the index page • Added exits, and exit checks at every screen • Unclear mapping of status numbers and their meanings • Conversion to a three value status representation

  10. User Study Description • Participants • 3 medics from a non-profit clinic • Recruitment by asking for volunteers • Tasks • Completeness Check • Correctness Check • Printing out lab form • Method: Think Aloud Study

  11. User Study Description (cont.) • Test Metrics • Productivity • Number of steps • Remarked feature was helpful or “cool” • Subjective ratings • Minimal Error Rates • “Wrong” clicks • Visibly searching for more than 10 seconds • Confused for more than 10 seconds • Asked for help • Visibly frustrated

  12. Results - Productivity • Bottom-Line Data • 2 out of 3 participants rated QCopi high in productivity • Process Data • “It’s neat that it can print [lab forms]…That’s cool.” (Participant A) • “The check mark for completeness is kind of cool.” (Participant C)

  13. Results – Minimal Errors • Bottom-Line Data • All participants had approx. 3 or fewer “wrong” clicks per task • Process Data • “I guess that’s a safety saving me from changing everything when I don’t want to…” (Participant C) • “Computers take a little while to get used to.” (Participant B)

  14. Conclusion • Useful functions help increase productivity at the clinic • Automated checks help decrease errors in patient records • Subjective reactions: • thought was useful and “cool” • affinity for traditional paper and pen

  15. Questions, Comments, or Concerns? Thank You!

More Related