skip to main content
10.1145/3491101.3503571acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

IT-Supported Request Management for Clinical Radiology: Contextual Design and Remote Prototype Testing

Authors Info & Claims
Published:28 April 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Management of radiology requests in larger clinical contexts is characterized by a complex and distributed workflow. In our partner hospital, representing many similar clinics, these processes often still rely on exchanging physical papers and forms, making patient or case data challenging to access. This often leads to phone calls with long waiting queues, which are time-inefficient and result in frequent interrupts. We report on a user-centered design approach based on Rapid Contextual Design with an additional focus group to optimize and iteratively develop a new workflow. Participants found our prototypes fast and intuitive, the design clean and consistent, relevant information easy to access, and the request process fast and easy. Due to the COVID pandemic, we switched to remote prototype testing, which yielded equally good feedback and increased the participation rate. In the end, we propose best practices for remote prototype testing in hospitals with complex and distributed workflows.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3491101.3503571-video.mp4

mp4

5.9 MB

3491101.3503571-talk-video.mp4

mp4

13.1 MB

3491101.3503571-video-preview.mp4

mp4

1.2 MB

References

  1. Apple. 2021. iOS Design Themes. https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/overview/themes/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Lars Borgen, Erling Stranden, and Ansgar Espeland. 2010. Clinicians’ justification of imaging: do radiation issues play a role?Insights into imaging 1, 3 (2010), 193–200.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. John Brooke. 1995. SUS: A ’Quick and Dirty’ Usability Scale. Usability Evaluation In IndustryJuly (1995), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781498710411-35Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Nicholas Brown and Lee Jones. 2013. Knowledge of medical imaging radiation dose and risk among doctors. Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology 57, 1 (2013), 8–14.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Karen Holtzblatt, Jessamyn Burns Wendell, and Shelley Wood. 2004. Rapid contextual design: a how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Elsevier, 500 Sansome Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, CA 94111.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Ursula Hübner, Moritz Esdar, Jens Hüsers, Jan-David Liebe, Laura Naumann, Johannes Thye, and Jan-Patrick Weiß. 2020. IT-Report Gesundheitswesen 2020 - Wie reif ist die Gesundheits-IT aus Anwender-Perspektive? Befragung ärztlicher und pflegerischer Krankenhaus-Direktoren*innen in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Technical Report. Forschungsgruppe Informatik im Gesundheitswesen (IGW) - Hochschule Osnabrück.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Axure Software Solutions Inc.2021. Axure RP 10. https://www.axure.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Zoom Video Communications Inc.2021. Zoom: Video Conferencing Tool. https://zoom.us/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Interaction Design Group. 2018. NASA-TLX (Kurzfassung deutsch). (2018), 1–3. http://interaction-design-group.de/toolbox/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/NASA-TLX.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Holger Klapperich, Matthias Laschke, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2018. The positive practice canvas: gathering inspiration for wellbeing-driven design. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 74–81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Philipp Krop, Samantha Straka, Melanie Ullrich, Maximilian Ertl, and Marc Erich Latoschik. 2021. IT-Supported request management for clinical radiology: Analyzing the Radiological Order Workflow through Contextual Interviews. In Mensch und Computer 2021 (MuC ’21), September 5-8, 2021, Ingolstadt, Germany. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3473856.3473992Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jordan Gilleland Marchak, Brooke Cherven, Rebecca Williamson Lewis, Paula Edwards, Lillian R. Meacham, Michael Palgon, Cam Escoffery, and Ann C. Mertens. 2020. User-centered design and enhancement of an electronic personal health record to support survivors of pediatric cancers. Supportive Care in Cancer 28, 8 (2020), 3905–3914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05199-wGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Miro. 2021. Miro - Online Whiteboard Tool. https://miro.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. João M. Monteiro and Carla Teixeira Lopes. 2018. Health talks — a mobile app to improve health communication and personal information management. CHIIR 2018 - Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Human Information Interaction and Retrieval 2018-March (2018), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1145/3176349.3176894Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability engineering. Morgan Kaufmann.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Jharina Pascual and Sarah Wallbank. 2021. Analyzing Workflows and Improving Communication across Departments: A Quick and Simple Project Using Rapid Contextual Design. Serials Librarian 80, 1-4 (2021), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0361526X.2021.1877996Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. T. Rudolf and S. Schmidt. 2016. Digitalisierung im Krankenhaus. Medizintechnik (Cologne) 136, 6 (2016), 28–30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Victor Stephani, Reinhard Busse, and Alexander Geissler. 2019. Benchmarking der Krankenhaus-IT: Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich. In Krankenhaus-Report 2019. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58225-1_2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Antti Surma-aho, Katja Hölttä-Otto, Kaisa Nelskylä, and Nina C. Lindfors. 2021. Usability issues in the operating room – Towards contextual design guidelines for medical device design. Applied Ergonomics 90, December 2019 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103221Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Johannes Thye, Ursula Hübner, Moritz Esdar, Jens Hüsers, Jens Rauch, Jan-David Liebe, and Jan-Patrick Weiß. 2018. IT-Report Gesundheitswesen 2018 - Schwerpunkt - Wie reif ist die IT in deutschen Krankenhäusern?Technical Report. Forschungsgruppe Informatik im Gesundheitswesen (IGW) - Hochschule Osnabrück.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Alarith Uhde, Matthias Laschke, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2021. Design and Appropriation of Computer-supported Self-scheduling Practices in Healthcare Shift Work. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1(2021), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449219 arxiv:2102.02132Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Karel Vredenburg, Ji Ye Mao, Paul W. Smith, and Tom Carey. 2002. A survey of user-centered design practice. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings 4, 1(2002), 471–478. https://doi.org/10.1145/503457.503460Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Yao Xie, Melody Chen, David Kao, Ge Gao, and Xiang Anthony Chen. 2020. CheXplain: Enabling Physicians to Explore and Understand Data-Driven, AI-Enabled Medical Imaging Analysis. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings (2020), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376807 arxiv:2001.05149Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI EA '22: Extended Abstracts of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 2022
    3066 pages
    ISBN:9781450391566
    DOI:10.1145/3491101

    Copyright © 2022 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 28 April 2022

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • extended-abstract
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI '24
    CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 11 - 16, 2024
    Honolulu , HI , USA

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format