Evaluation of the Usability of Admission and Medical Record Information System: A Heuristic Evaluation

Introduction: Admission and medical record system (AMRS) is one of the most important subsystems of hospital information system, which is used by many users in admission, discharge, and health information management. Interface usability problems can reduce user speed, precision, and efficiency in user-system interaction. This study aimed to identify the usability problems of AMRS in a hospital information system. Method: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, five health information technology experts evaluated AMRS in a hospital information system using heuristic evaluation. Then, the system usability problems were categorized according to Nielsen's 10 usability principles and their severity were determined. Results: Totally, 62 unique usability problems were detected. The most frequent problems were related to "consistency and standards" (n=9) and ''recognition rather than recall" (n=9), and the least frequent ones was related to "flexibility and efficiency of use" (n=1). 59.7% of the identified problems were categorized as big and severe problems. The highest average severity of problems belonged to "system’s visibility" and "aesthetic and minimalist design", and the least average severity belonged to "error prevention". Conclusion: Using heuristic evaluation, a large number of usability problems in AMRS were identified. According to experts' opinions, most of the HIS interface problems were big and severe, and they need to be modified by designers and developers of these systems

Evaluation of Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS): Radiologists’ perspective

Background: Evaluating Picture Archiving and Communication Systems (PACS) from the perspective of radiologists can provide valuable insights into the system's strengths and weaknesses, enabling designers to receive feedback and make improvements accordingly. As user acceptance is critical for the successful implementation of information systems, it is important to identify the views of radiologists on PACS. Discovering the users' perspectives can help identify possible system weaknesses and provide feedback to designers. Methods: This cross-sectional survey study involved radiologists and radiology residents working in two teaching hospitals that used different PACS. A total of 138 participants were included in the study using a census method. A standard questionnaire comprising 40 items based on a three-option Likert scale (disagree, no idea, and agree) was used to collect data, which was divided into four sections. After translation, the content validity of the questionnaire was confirmed (CVI>0.9), and its reliability was confirmed by a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.71. The data were analyzed using SPSS software, and the mean score for each item was calculated. The independent sample t-test was used to compare the mean scores of each section between the two PACS. Results: Radiologists identified better education for medical students as the most significant advantage of PACS. Almost 90% of radiologists believed that PACS met their expectations for patient care and improved care delivery. The biggest challenge of PACS was the continued dependence on paper after implementation, rather than being entirely paperless. According to radiologists, PACS B had a more significant impact on patient care and posed fewer challenges than PACS A (P value < 0.01). Conclusions: Based on radiologists' perspectives, PACS improves care delivery and patients' satisfaction compared to traditional film-based systems, while also reducing patient care costs by eliminating the need for film and paper. However, the system faces several challenges, such as poor image quality and slow processing speeds. The use of appropriate infrastructure to implement the system could be one solution to these challenges