Burton, Matthew M.

Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a mission-critical process which can serve to reduce adverse drug events (ADEs) in surgical settings. However, providing quality care is limited by current health information technology (IT), which is often inefficient and unintuitive due to poor usability, resulting in high cognitive burden. We have been characterizing EHR mediated workflow in the Mayo Clinic enterprise prior to a system-wide electronic health records (EHR) conversion in order to harmonize workflows. We compared and evaluated MedRec processes in pre-operative nursing assessments across two different EHRs in place in different locales at baseline. The interfaces differed both in their modes of interaction and cognitive support. Analyses surfaced interface elements that were unintuitive and inefficient, creating unnecessary complexities in clinicians’ interactive behavior. Keystroke level models (KLM), a modeling tool for predicting task completion time, showed that to access medication lists required a different series of operations across the two systems. Different designs can differentially mediate task performance, which can aid in the mitigation of errors for complex cognitive tasks. Identification of barriers in EHR-mediated workflow and barriers to interface usability could lead to system redesigns that minimize cognitive load while improving patient safety and efficiency.

Patient-centered cognitive support has been shown to be critically important to facilitate the effective use of health information technologies (HIT). There is a well-documented need to better understand HIT-mediated clinical workflow. Current technologies can burden clinicians’ cognitive resources, which is associated with patient safety risks and medical errors. We sought to employ a distributed cognition approach to examine how information flows across the activity system to support clinicians’ problem-solving. Specifically, we studied the propagation of representational states across media, conversations, actors and time in the coordination of patient-care processes. We examined multiple instances of work and information flow in a real-world setting, revealing problems in information flow: a) use of paper artifacts has limitations to facilitating coordination of care, b) clinicians challenged in developing shared awareness, c) responsibility of representing patient states is distributed across documents, d) clinical reasoning that informed care plans was absent from documents. Findings surface a challenge to automated monitoring of care goals; much of the information is present only in clinicians’ minds and in informal documents.