Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · ACI open 2020; 04(01): e35-e43
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702213
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Visualization of Electronic Health Record Data for Decision-Making in Diabetes and Congestive Heart Failure

Shira H. Fischer
1   RAND Corporation, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
2   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
3   Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham & Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Charles Safran
4   Division of Clinical Informatics, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Krzysztof Z. Gajos
5   Harvard Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
,
Adam Wright
6   Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding This work was supported by grant support from NIH training grant T15LM007092.
Further Information

Publication History

06 June 2019

18 December 2019

Publication Date:
25 March 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study is to study the impact of graphical representation of health record data on physician decision-making to inform the design of health information technology.

Materials and Methods We conducted a within participants crossover design study using a simulated electronic health record (EHR) in which we presented cases with and without visualized data designed to highlight important clinical trends or relationships, followed by assessment of the impact on decision-making about next steps for patients with chronic diseases. We then asked whether trends were observed and about usability and satisfaction using validated usability questions and asked open-ended questions as well. Time to answer questions was also collected.

Results Twenty-one primary care providers participated in the study, including five for testing only and sixteen for the full study. Questions about clinical assessment or next actions were answered correctly 55% of the time. Regarding objective trends in the data, participants described noticing the trends 85% of the time. Differences in noticing trends or difficulty level of questions were not statistically significant. Satisfaction with the tool was high and participants agreed strongly that it helped them make better decisions without adding to the time it took.

Discussion The simulation allowed us to test the impact of a visualization on clinician practice in a realistic setting. Designers of EHRs should consider the ways information presentation can affect decision-making.

Conclusion Testing visualization tools can be done in a clinically realistic context. Providers desire visualizations and believe that they help them make better and faster decisions.

Keywords

visualization - decision-making - diabetes - congestive heart failure - electronic health record

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This research was reviewed and deemed exempt by the hospital's institutional review board.


Supplementary Material

 

  • References

  • 1 Reiser SJ. The clinical record in medicine. Part 1: Learning from cases. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114 (10) 902-907
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office of the Secretary. Health Information Technology: standards, implementation specifications, and certification criteria for electronic health record technology, 2014 edition; Revisions to the Permanent Certification Program for Health Information Technology. 45 CFR Part 170 RIN 0991–AB82. 2012 . Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-09-04/pdf/2012-20982.pdf . Accessed January 24, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Jha AK, DesRoches CM, Kralovec PD, Joshi MS. A progress report on electronic health records in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010; 29 (10) 1951-1957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jha AK, Ferris TG, Donelan K. , et al. How common are electronic health records in the United States? A summary of the evidence. Health Aff (Millwood) 2006; 25 (06) w496-w507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hsiao C-J, Hing E. NCHS data brief: use and characteristics of electronic health record systems among office-based physician practices: United States, 2001–2013. 2014 ; Number 143, January 2014: Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db143.htm . Accessed April, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bleich HL, Slack WV. Reflections on electronic medical records: when doctors will use them and when they will not. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79 (01) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators' decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ 1999; 318 (7197): 1527-1531
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Walker JM. Influence of data display formats on decisions to stop clinical trials. Paper is misleading, like a sheep dressed in a wolf's clothing. BMJ 1999; 319 (7216): 1070
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Marshall T, Mohammed MA, Rouse A. A randomized controlled trial of league tables and control charts as aids to health service decision-making. Int J Qual Health Care 2004; 16 (04) 309-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tan JKH, Benbasat I. Processing of graphical information: a decomposition taxonomy to match data extraction tasks and graphical representations. Inf Syst Res 1990; 416-439 . Available at: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/4431032/processing-graphical-information-decomposition-taxonomy-match-data-extraction-tasks-graphical-representations
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kumar N, Benbasat I. The effect of relationship encoding, task type, and complexity on information representation: an empirical evaluation of 2D and 3D line graphs. Manage Inf Syst Q 2004; 28 (02) 255-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kim Y, Heer J. Assessing effects of task and data distribution on the effectiveness of visual encodings. Comput. Graph. Forum 2018; Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Assessing-Effects-of-Task-and-Data-Distribution-on-Kim-Heer/6979c6e6f385263cfd5dfc34d70e30dddd07778d . Accessed January 24, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Demiralp Ç, Bernstein MS, Heer J. Learning perceptual kernels for visualization design. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2014; 20 (12) 1933-1942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wu DTY, Chen AT, Manning JD. , et al. Evaluating visual analytics for health informatics applications: a systematic review from the American Medical Informatics Association Visual Analytics Working Group Task Force on Evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2019; 26 (04) 314-323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Samal L, Wright A, Wong BT, Linder JA, Bates DW. Leveraging electronic health records to support chronic disease management: the need for temporal data views. Inform Prim Care 2011; 19 (02) 65-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bauer DT, Guerlain S, Brown PJ. The design and evaluation of a graphical display for laboratory data. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010; 17 (04) 416-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Torsvik T, Lillebo B, Mikkelsen G. Presentation of clinical laboratory results: an experimental comparison of four visualization techniques. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 (02) 325-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mishuris RG, Yoder J, Wilson D, Mann D. Integrating data from an online diabetes prevention program into an electronic health record and clinical workflow, a design phase usability study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2016; 16: 88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Plaisant C. The challenge of information visualization evaluation. Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. Vol Gallipoli, Italy: ACM; 2004 . Available at: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/989863.989880 . Accessed January 24, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Friel SN, Curcio FR, Bright GW. Making sense of graphs: Critical factors influencing comprehension and instructional implications. J Res Math Educ 2001; 32 (02) 124-158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tufte ER. Beautiful Evidence. Vol 1. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Tufte ER, Graves-Morris PR. The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Vol 2. Cheshire, CT: Graphics press; 1983
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Tufte ER, Robins D. Visual Explanations. Vol 25. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Few S. Information Dashboard Design. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Few S. Now You See It: Simple Visualization Techniques for Quantitative Analysis. Oakland, CA: Analytics Press; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Few S. Show Me the Numbers: Designing Tables and Graphs to Enlighten. Vol 1. Oakland, CA: Analytics Press; 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Google Developers. Google charts. Available at: https://google-developers.appspot.com/chart/interactive/docs/index . Accessed January 24, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Python Software Foundation. (2013). Python 2.7.5: Anaconda 1.8.0 (x86_64). Available at: http://www.python.org . Accessed January 24, 2020
    PubMed
  • 29 R Core Team. (2013). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: http://www.R-project.org/ . ISBN 3–900051–07–0. Accessed January 24, 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact 1995; 7 (01) 57-78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Shortliffe EH, Cimino JJ. Biomedical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care and Biomedicine. 4 ed. London: Springer; 2014
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Krein SL, Hofer TP, Kerr EA, Hayward RA. Whom should we profile? Examining diabetes care practice variation among primary care providers, provider groups, and health care facilities. Health Serv Res 2002; 37 (05) 1159-1180
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Brooks JM, Cook EA, Chapman CG. , et al. Geographic variation in statin use for complex acute myocardial infarction patients: evidence of effective care?. Med Care 2014; 52 (Suppl. 03) S37-S44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR. , et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999; 282 (15) 1458-1465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Elstein AS, Schwartz A. Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature. BMJ 2002; 324 (7339): 729-732
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Patel VL, Groen GJ. Knowledge based solution strategies in medical reasoning. Cogn Sci 1986; 10 (01) 91-116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Thyvalikakath TP, Dziabiak MP, Johnson R. , et al. Advancing cognitive engineering methods to support user interface design for electronic health records. Int J Med Inform 2014; 83 (04) 292-302
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar