Publications

Consumer health technologies can educate patients about diabetes and support their self-management, yet usability evidence is rarely published even though it determines patient engagement, optimal benefit of any intervention, and an understanding of generalizability. Therefore, we conducted a narrative review of peer-reviewed articles published from 2009 to 2013 that tested the usability of a web- or mobile-delivered system/application designed to educate and support patients with diabetes. Overall, the 23 papers included in our review used mixed (n = 11), descriptive quantitative (n = 9), and qualitative methods (n = 3) to assess usability, such as documenting which features performed as intended and how patients rated their experiences. More sophisticated usability evaluations combined several complementary approaches to elucidate more aspects of functionality. Future work pertaining to the design and evaluation of technology-delivered diabetes education/support interventions should aim to standardize the usability testing processes and publish usability findings to inform interpretation of why an intervention succeeded or failed and for whom.

BACKGROUND

Delayed and missed diagnoses lead to significant patient harm. Because physician actions are fundamental to the outpatient diagnostic process, a study was conducted to explore physician perspectives on diagnosis.

METHODS

As part of a quality improvement initiative, an integrated health system conducted six physician focus groups in 2004 and 2005. The focus groups included questions about the process of diagnosis, specific factors contributing to missed diagnosis, use of guidelines, atypical vs. typical presentations of disease, diagnostic tools, and follow-up, all with regard to delays in the diagnostic process. The interviews were analyzed (1) deductively, with application of the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, which addresses systems design, quality management, job design, and technology implementations that affect safety-related patient and organizational and/or staff outcomes, and (2) inductively, with identification of novel themes using content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 25 physicians participated in the six focus groups, which yielded 12 hours of discussion. Providers identified multiple barriers to timely and accurate diagnosis, including organizational culture, information availability, and communication factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple themes relating to each of the participants in the diagnostic process-health system, provider, and patient-emerged. Concerns about health system structure and providers' interactions with one another and with patients far exceeded discussion of the cognitive factors that might affect the diagnostic process. The results suggest that, at least in physicians' views, improving the diagnostic process requires attention to the organization of the health system in addition to the cognitive aspects of diagnosis.