Cross-sectional analysis shows high usability of HIS in an emergency room, indicating positive impact on patient safety.
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the awareness, user-friendliness, and operational efficiency of the electronic hospital information system (HIS) within the emergency room. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the usability and efficiency of the HIS among 103 emergency physicians at a tertiary hospital in New Delhi. A structured questionnaire assessed the patient display system (PDS), laboratory information system (LIS), and radiology information system (RIS) modules of the HIS. The HIS’s usability among users was determined using a modified system usability score (SUS). Statistical analysis: Data analysis was performed using statistics and data (STATA) software, version 14. Quantitative data were expressed as numbers and percentages. The data were assessed by descriptive tests (mean, percentage, and frequency). The mean PDS, LIS, and RIS scores were compared across respondents using a one-way analysis of variance test. Post hoc Test comparison was done using the Tukey Honestly Significant Difference test. Results: One hundred and three emergency physicians responded to the survey. Usability, measured through a modified SUS, yielded a mean score of 86.8 (standard deviation = 16.5), indicating “good-to-excellent” performance. PDS showed a statistically significant difference across groups ( P = 0.03). Most respondents found the HIS faster and more accurate than paper records, supporting test ordering, results access, decision-making, and follow-up. Integration of graphical and tabular displays was suggested to further improve usability. Conclusions: This study indicates that the usability of the HIS is approaching an excellent level. It provided valuable insights into physicians’ perspectives on using the HIS for patient care in the emergency department. Enhancing the LIS with integrated graphs and tables could further improve its usability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mukhopadhyay et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: