The Care Information System PIK – the Fit between User and System

Summary

Objectives: The presented laboratory study explores the relationship between the care information system PIK and its users, focusing on intuitive program usage, occurring errors, the usefulness of the evaluation method, and the role of person related variables.

Methods: Three studies were conducted. While thinking aloud, a sample of 26 participants performed certain tasks, which were recorded in protocols. In addition, the occurring errors were rated in an error taxonomy.

Results: While the actual use of the program proved quite easy, conceptual structuring caused the participants difficulties. These difficulties stemmed mainly from problems encountered in generating a clear mental picture of the system, and the consequences of the actions. Over time, the program showed a positive development.

Conclusions: Discussion of the results focuses on implementation processes in the context of usability research. The need to train users in the conceptual structure of the program and to build realistic expectations are the focus of our outline.

Keywords

Nursing care - information systems - evaluation studies

• References

• 1 Büssing A, Herbig B. Recent developments of care information systems in Germany. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 307-10.
• 2 Büssing A. (ed.). Von der funktionalen zur ganzheitlichen Krankenpflege. Reorganisation von Dienstleistungsprozessen im Krankenhaus [From functional to holistic nursing. Reorganization of service processes in hospitals]. Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie; 1997
• 3 Fiechter V, Meier M. Pflegeplanung. Eine Anleitung für die Praxis [Care planning. A guideline for practice]. Basel: Hoffmann-La Roche; 1981
• 4 Büssing A, Herbig B. The challenges of a care information system reflecting holistic nursing care. Comput Nurs 1998; 16: 311-7.
• 5 Ammenwerth E, Eichstädter R, Kochenburger L. et al. Systematic evaluation of a computer-based nursing documentation system. In: Proceedings of 44th GMDS-Jahrestagung in Heidelberg. München: Urban & Vogel; 1999: 286-90.
• 6 Liskowsky R, Velichkovsky BM, Wünschmann W. editors. Software-Ergonomie ’97. Usability engineering: Integration von Mensch-Computer-Interaktion und Software-Entwicklung (Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM, Bd. 49) [Software ergonomics ’97. Usability engineering. Integration of human-computer-interaction and software development (Report No. 49 of the German Chapter of the ACM)]. Stuttgart: Teubner; 1997
• 7 Scriven M. Evaluation thesaurus. London: Sage; 1991
• 8 Torkzadeh R, Pflughoeft K, Hall L. Computer self-efficacy, training effectiveness and user attitudes: an empirical study. Behav Inform Technol 1999; 18: 299-309.
• 9 Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman; 1997
• 10 Franc R. Attitude strength and the attitude-behavior domain: Magnitude and independence of moderating effects of different strength indices. J Soc Behav Pers 1999; 14: 925-39.
• 11 Getty M, Ryan AA, Ekins MLC. A comparative study of the attitudes of users and non-users towards computerized care planning. J Clin Nurs 1999; 8: 431-9.
• 12 Carayon P. Temporal issues of quality of working life and stress in human-computer interaction. Int J Human-Computer Interact 1997; 9: 325-42.
• 13 Parker SK, Sprigg CA. Minimizing strain and maximizing learning: The role of job demands, job control, and proactive personality. J Appl Psychol 1999; 84: 925-39.
• 14 Ericsson KA, Simon HA. Protocol Analysis – Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge: Bradford; 1993
• 15 Van der Veer GC, Tauber MJ, Waern Y, van Muylwijk B. On the interaction between system and user characteristics. Behav Inform Technol 1985; 4: 289-308.
• 16 Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills Cal: Sage; 1984
• 17 Rasmussen J, Duncan K, Leplat J. (eds.). New Technology and human error. Chichester NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1987
• 18 Brodbeck FC, Zapf D, Prümper J, Frese M. Error handling in office work with computers: A field study. J Occup Organ Psychol 1993; 66: 303-17.
• 19 Nelson R, Anton B. A format for surveying computer-related learning needs in health care settings. Comput Nurs 1996; 14: 150-4.
• 20 Murphy CA, Coover D, Owen SV. Development and validation of the computer self-efficacy scale. Educ Psychol Meas 1989; 49: 893-9.
• 21 Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action – A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986
• 22 Harrison AW, Rainer RK. An examination of the factor structures and concurrent validities for the computer attitude scale, the computer anxiety rating scale, and the computer self-efficacy scale. Educ Psychol Meas 1992; 52: 735-45.
• 23 Plath HE, Richter P. Ermüdung – Monotonie – Sättigung. Verfahren zur skalierten Erfassung erlebter Beanspruchungsfolgen [Weariness – Monotony – Saturation. Method for a scaled measurement of experienced consequences of strain]. Berlin: Psychodiagnostisches Zentrum; 1984
• 24 Ginzberg MJ. Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure: Promising results and unanswered questions. Manage Sci 1981; 27: 459-78.
• 25 Brodt A, Strong J. Nurses’ attitudes toward computerization in a Midwestern community hospital. Comput Nurs 1986; 4: 82-6.
• 26 McBride S, Nagle LM. Attitudes toward computers. A test of construct validity. Comput Nurs 1996; 14: 164-70.
• 27 Harrison MD, Monk AF. Editors. People and Computers: Designing for Usability. Cambridge: University Press; 1986
• 28 Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal Reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 1977; 83: 231-59.
• 29 Sein M, Olfmann L, Bostrom R, Davis S. Visualization ability as a predictor of user learning success. Int J Man-Machine Studies 1993; 39: 599-620.
• 30 Dillon A, Watson C. User analysis in HCI: the historical lesson from individual differences research. Int J Hum-Comput Studies 1996; 45: 619-37.
• 31 Büssing A, Glaser J. Work stressors in nursing in the course of redesign: Implications for burnout and interactional stress. EJWOP 1999; 8: 401-26.