Test participant profiles were created to model real users. A pre-requisite was that all HHS personnel had high domain knowledge and the relevant education necessary for assistant nurses. Since substitute similarity was required, we assured that the HHS personnel did not know the patient they were visiting (in the test).

Computer training is rarely available for homecare staff. Therefore, in this simulated real-environment test, no specific computer training was demanded, resulting in a potential range of computer skills from “novice” to “expert”.

Design of the test strived to reflect a realistic situation for HHS, a correct context of use. Five managers in Elderly Care/Homecare in Sweden validated the proposed education for the participants as a realistic representation of the resources usually spent on educating substitutes (Fig. 4). According to these managers, the introduction for substitutes or new HHS personnel normally consists of two days of apprenticeship, where specific tools like an ICT system could occupy approximately two hours, one hour for a group introduction and one hour for individual education. The day a new recruit starts working, a colleague would give a run-through of the local work procedures, within which a maximum of 20 minutes would focus on the ICT tool.

Fig. (4). A realistic amount of education was given to test participants, alike that provided for real homecare recruits.

Consequently, education of the VHR system for the participants was conducted in the same way as the one for new recruits in a real homecare setting.

Two assistant nurses from the development site and experts on the system were invited to present the VHR and to describe the purpose of the system; how the VHR was used in practice; and specifically how the functions supported homecare work situations. This group introduction was held during an ordinary staff meeting and lasted for 30 minutes (Fig. 4). Another 30 minute presentation was given by the test coordinators to describe the usability lab and explain how the test was to be performed. Questions from the staff were answered and eight interested personnel voluntarily enrolled to participate in the test.

In groups of two beginners supported by one of the experienced assistant nurses the entire system was walked through in an hour. The experienced user described each function and design solution thoroughly. Every new user followed a number of scenarios to perform daily tasks using the PDA. While sitting next to a colleague the new users either asked each other or got support on how to solve the task from the experienced user. According to interviews, this 2-on-1 education corresponded to the education which was likely to be given to new or substitute homecare personnel in a real situation and kept within the feasible timeframe suggested by the managers. This setting was conducive to the “natural learning mode” and therefore worked well. The participants were relaxed and comfortable. For this test, no other PDA or previous ICT training was required.

Eight participants were sequentially invited to the Usability Lab at the Department of Information Science, Uppsala University in Uppsala. Upon arrival, the participant was greeted and introduced to the lab. She was informed about her rights and thereafter signed an approved consent document. A questionnaire providing background information about the participant was also completed. Prior to the test, the participant was given a run-through of the system. Usually, there are two reasons for providing education during a usability test: (1) to ensure that all participants have the same level of skill or knowledge before they begin the tasks, or (2) to provide some participants with education that others do not get [12] (p. 212). In this case, the purpose was to simulate the first working day, as it would start for a substitute in homecare (Fig. 4). The run-through of the application and the device lasted 20 minutes. All participants underwent the same demonstration.

While performing the test, the participant followed 14 cue cards containing tasks (see Table 1 and the section below). The participant was asked to read the task out loud and then indicate when she found the correct itinerary on the PDA to complete the task, or when she thought correct itinerary was found, i.e. correct actions (Fig. 5). She was also encouraged to think aloud while performing the task. No manual or feedback was provided.

Fig. (5). Participant in the test room, and test coordinator in the observation room.

The test was performed in an hour, including pre and post questionnaires. These questionnaires were developed for the test and inline with the methodology of Dumas and Redish [12]. Two assistant nurses who were both domain experts and experienced users of the system were invited to validate all statements in the questionnaires and to tune the tasks before the test procedure started. When the invited nurses considered the tasks realistic for homecare work and understandable for their colleagues, they carried out a pilot test.

Usage of the application on the PDA was recorded in several ways. All interactions on the PDA screen were digitally recorded on a computer in the observation room (Fig. 6). The transfer application used on the PDA was Active-Sync Remote Display v.2.03. An external camera recorded the PDA and the physical interactions as well as when the user changed tasks. These tasks were printed on cards next to the PDA (Fig. 5, left side). In the observation room, the observers used paper-notes to record the start and stop time for each task (Fig. 5, right side). This helped decoding of the recorded videos. Software used for recording the test and decoding the video was Morae v.1.2. The computer in the observation room was running an Intel Pentium4 3Ghz Hyper-Threading processor with 1Gb RAM memory together with an ATI Radeon X700 graphics card. The operating system was Windows XP Pro. The PDA used was an HP iPAQ H6300 Series with operating system Pocket PC 2003. The test team consisted of the first author and two M. Sc students and the test was carried out in April 2007.

Fig (6). Handheld usability laboratory set-up.

Effectiveness was measured as the number of users who completed the tasks. A task was completed when the participant performed a correct action, i.e. reached the goal within a pre-defined time limit. This limit was individual for each task and reached when the test participant consumed twice as much time as the experienced users. This definition was based on the limited resources in homecare, which constrains the time the staff can spend using ICT. Task failures were calculated as incorrect actions; exceeding the time limit and/or user termination. For a task to be considered effective the total completion rate needed to be at least six of eight participants.

Tasks with low effectiveness and/or low productivity were identified as tasks with potential usability problems. Productivity was measured in terms of the productive time spent to reach the goal of a task. Time spent was divided in different phases, e.g. when the user starts to be productive (follows the pre-defined correct itinerary), or unproductive (the user leaves the pre-defined itinerary). The decoding consisted in setting productivity time stamps when the user entered and ended each phase, or during “computer processing time” (when the PDA processes a database task making the user wait). Productivity was only analyzed within an effective task, i.e. a task that was completed.

After spending time with the prototype, the participants communicated their opinions of the usage in a satisfaction questionnaire. They responded to 13 statements and rated their satisfaction using a 5-point Likert scale [16]. This scale ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree and was associated with numerical values (higher scores correspond to a more desirable state) to summarize the subjective opinions by their medians. Due to the high number of temporary staff, the system must not only be easy to use, but also easy to learn, enabling new users to commence working with the system quickly. Therefore “learnability” was a major requirement as well as the perceived time to fulfill a task which must be “short”, also measured by the questionnaire (Fig. 7).

Fig. (7). User satisfaction questionnaire: Statements regarding the ICT tool and the application.

Eight participants matching the participant profile were recruited. These participants were from a Swedish HHS district other than the one where VHR was originally developed. These participants had no knowledge of the VHR system or of the patients they should be visiting during the test. Prior to the test, a conventional pre-test questionnaire, gathered further information about each participant; age, years in the profession and domain experience, as well as use of computers and handheld electronic devices.

All participants were assistant nurses; four of eight had 20 years or more of healthcare work experience; four of eight had 10 years experience of work in homecare, without correlation (Fig. 8). Four participants were 50 years old or more, no participants were younger than 30 years old.

Fig. (8). Participants’ age and number of years in healthcare and in homecare.

Results from the pre-test questionnaire revealed that all participants frequently used computers at work; 5 used it 3-4 days a week, and 3 used it everyday. All but one also frequently used a computer at home; 5 used it 3-4 days a week and 2 used it everyday at home. One used a computer at home once a week. All participants used the computer for searching/surfing the Internet, e-mail, chat, games, etc. None of the participants had prior experience of handheld computers.

When the user succeeds in reaching the goal, the task is completed and considered effective. On the other hand, a failure could be due to multiple reasons. For example, an incorrect action could have been caused by distraction and not specifically lack of knowledge or skill. It was therefore important to separately analyze each failure divided into sub-definitions (user termination, time expired and incorrect action) and to group all participant responses according to the goals (I) Finding practical information, (II) Finding health-related information, and (III) Documenting new information (Figs. 9-11). Two tasks were navigation tasks where the participants were instructed to switch from one patient to another. These tasks were completed by all eight (Fig. 12). Where several participants made the same error, this indicated there was a usability problem, as in task 6.

Fig. (9). Effectiveness of goal I: to find practical information: Task1 Find Werner’s address: 1/8 failed on user termination. Task 10 Find DN’s name and phone number: 3/8 failed due to incorrect action.

Fig. (10). Effectiveness of goal II: Finding health-related information. Task 2 What is the latest note in daily notes: 8/8 completed. Task 3 Is Werner allergic to something?: 1/8 failed on user termination. Task 4 Check the care contract: 6/8 completed, 2/8 failed: user termination. Task 5 Find out Werner’s goals in his care plan: 8/8 completed. Task 8: Find your last note in daily notes: 4/7 completed, failed: 2/7 incorrect action, 1/7 Time expired. Task 13 Find Stig’s prescription list: 8/8 completed. Task 14 Find out when the Seloken Zok should be taken: 8/8 completed.

Fig. (11). Effectiveness of goal III: Writing new information. Task 6 Document that Werner got out of bed: 1/8 completed the task. Failed: 4/8 time expired, 3/8 incorrect action. Task 7 Document that Werner took a shower: 4/7 completed the task, failed: 2/7 incorrect action and 1/7 time expired. In task 11, Write a daily note: 7/7 completed the task.

Fig. (12). Effectiveness in user navigation: Switch from one patient to another. Both task 9 and task 12 were completed by all 8 participants.

Task results from tasks 7, 8, and 11 are based on 7 participants; two participants got feedback from the test manager after the time had expired on task 6 respectively task 10. Consequently these participants learnt how to fulfill task 7 respectively task 11. This affected the data and we thus chose not to consider their responses. Task 7 and 8 were connected and task 8 could be completed only after successful completion of task 7; therefore task 8 was also omitted for this participant. In total 10 of 14 tasks were considered effective, that is, the participants succeeded in using the prototype to accomplish the assigned task and consequently they reached the HHS main goals.

Seven of 14 tasks were completed without failure by all participants. Of the remaining seven tasks, a total of 20 failures in 109 trials (18.35%) were noted. The main problems arose when documenting new information, (10 failures in 22 trials, the majority occurring in task 6). Finding health-related information was performed in seven tasks and six failures in 55 trials were recorded. Four failures in 16 trials of two tasks relating to finding practical information were also noted.

The analysis is performed with regard to the three goals in homecare, where “finding information” contains both health-related information and practical information.

To identify potential usability problems the efficiency of each task was measured. Total time spent in a completed task was divided into three states: productive time; unproductive time; and computer processing time, as defined in the section Materials and Methodology. Where the participants deviated from the pre-defined and most direct route in achieving the task goal, we noted a potential usability problem and analyzed why the participant was unproductive.

In Fig. (13) mean time is divided into the three states and grouped according to the homecare goals. Each task needed to be accomplished within a pre-defined time in order to be efficient. For each task mean and median time was calculated (Table 2).

Fig. (13). Mean time for each task, based on the participants that completed the task.

Task completion time differed between the tasks. Mean times of tasks which related to writing new information (tasks 7, 11) were approximately 2 minutes, while mean times of tasks relating to health-related information searching were between 20 and 40 seconds (tasks 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14). Tasks where the participants switched from one patient to another resulted in a 20-seconds computer processing time (tasks 9, 12). Saving new information (tasks 6, 7, 11) also resulted in a period of processing time.

Finding Information

In six tasks whose objective was to find information, the majority of the participants completed the tasks in less than 30 seconds, t1:6/7; t2:5/8; t3:6/7; t8:4/4; t13:8/8; t14:7/8. This was as quick as the experienced users.

Task 5, finding the goals in Werner’s care plan, took slightly longer. Five of eight participants found the correct information in less than 40 seconds. Two of eight participants found it in 40-60s, and one participant in 60-80s (mean time=39s). Task 10, finding name and phone number of the responsible district nurse, also took slightly longer. Median for this task was 50s and mean time was 36,75s. It is also important to note that three users exceeded the time limit, probably due to difficulties in finding the information in the menu. Participants may have been confused as previous tasks involved navigation in the tabs, not the menus. Moreover, the label of the menu containing the information violated the heuristic rule of “match between system and real world” [17]. Post test results indicate that this menu was too generic; “General info” did not assist users in identifying the actual content of this menu. In fact, “General Info” could be understood as containing information about the system and not about the patient. Renaming the menu is advisable. The design idea of storing generic information in the menu and health-related information on the tabs was not obvious to the participants. The system should support a patient centered view and clearly indicate that patient specific information is central, and to be found on the tabs. In contrast, the framework for treating the patient, such as contact information to other care professionals, is more peripheral and could therefore be kept in the menus.

Task 4, looking up the care contract, caused more unproductive time than productive for three participants, while trying to find correct information. Two participants did not even search for the care contract. This could be due to the fact that these participants did not use the same terminology for “care contracts” as the district where the system was developed. It was observed that participants with a lot of unproductive time, had trouble understanding the tab navigation; especially how many tabs there were and where the user could find them. The tabs followed conventional PocketPC environment and were placed on a scroll bar and there was no marker, other than the navigation arrows, to indicate that the tabs could continue to the left (Fig. 14). It is also interesting to note that 3/8 participants caused all unproductive time in task 2.

Fig. (14). Users need to conceptualize the navigation arrows on the right hand side of the tab bar.

All 8 participants completed a user satisfaction questionnaire with focus on their individual interaction with the VHR. The statements regarded the demo session; learnability and ease of use in relation to interaction with the tool and finding and understanding information. The subjective opinion about technical tools in general and the overall impression of this particular tool was also examined (Table 3). The participant group was too small to estimate population characteristics. Thus, regarding e.g. perceived time (long or short) for the system to respond on user interactions, the quantified subjective answers should only be considered as indicators of possible problems with the efficiency of the system.

The post-test questionnaire captured the participants’ opinions regarding the homecare goals and their fulfillment. Quantitative measures as effectiveness and potential usability problems were compared to the participants’ qualitative answers. For example, the homecare requirement “each task needs to be accomplished within a limited timeframe” was analyzed using actualtime spent, a component for identifying potential usability problems together with the participants’ opinions about the perceived time to accomplish a task. Another requirement, “the system must be easy to learn”, was both measured in the user satisfaction questionnaire and as an effect of performance time; if you are effective and efficient in your work after a limited education and with little experience of the application, then the system is easy to learn. This analysis also included how easily users found practical and health-related information in the system, and how easily they documented new notes.

Although practical use of usability evaluations is still often lacking in health informatics in general [18, 19] and homecare in particular [11] we here reflect on this particular set-up. A drawback of this usability lab test approach was that even though a mobile system was tested, the study did not consider interaction with the device while participants were in motion. However, our previous research shows that when homecare staff interact with the electronic devices in the field, they normally either sit down in a patient’s home, or stand still just outside the patient’s door. In fact, interaction is seldom performed when the users are in motion.

When an application is tested in a usability lab, there is not always the opportunity to involve real user groups; often students or groups similar to the real user group participate. In this case, great care was taken to recruit participants who actually were experienced homecare staff and potential system users. According to Dumas and Redish [12], in a tentative study, the participant number should not be less than eight. Aware of the volunteer effect, where volunteers possibly perform better than others, we were nevertheless satisfied when eight real homecare professionals volunteered for the test. At this stage, randomized samples of users or larger numbers of test participants were considered unnecessary. Future evaluations will however involve a larger number of participants and/or possibly be carried out in a real homecare environment.

The test session was planned together with experienced users from the district where the system once was developed. Although they performed pilot tests and validated the tasks, there were some terminology problems occurring during the test, e.g. in task 6. These could possibly have been revealed if a pre-test had been performed by a novice user. This reflection also regards the post-test questionnaire where statements 3-5 had reversed values, which were complicated to understand for the participants and thus we recommend not to use reversed statements in questionnaires.

The education of the participants was planned with managers in homecare and performed at one occasion. Time spent between education and test differed between two and four weeks for the participants, and they had no access to the handheld electronic devices in between. Evidently, some participants complained they did not remember the education. This study did not measure how easily the system can be used after a period of absence; however, we suggest there is a strong relationship to the time of education and the user’s everyday familiarity with the system. If two hours is the maximum time to introduce novice users to an ICT tool in homecare, then the education needs to be held in close proximity to the first day of work. A future study could investigate whether it is economically feasible to update the system or to amend the content and/or presentation of the system education.

The VHR was originally developed for a specific homecare district and used by the HHS there. We were nevertheless interested in transferring the application to a different homecare district and a new user group. In theory, the same type of work is performed, that is, providing homecare for elderly patients. The two user groups did not differ drastically; assistant nurses with long experience of working in homecare were present in both groups. However, in reality, there were some differences, as explained below, and these affected the test results. If left without consideration, they could negatively effect the future implementation of the system.

In Sweden to date, there is no standardized terminology for documentation used by HHS. Terminologies differ between municipalities, or even between homecare teams in the same municipality. This occasionally made it difficult for the test participants to find the right information, as they were not familiar with some of the terms used. In task 4, look up the care contract, several users had difficulty finding the information and they stated this difficulty was due to differences in terminology.

Differences in work practices were also present. Care plans were used by “the original” homecare team to organize and plan the continuity of care required on a long-term basis for the patient. The care plan was also used as basis for documenting when a planned intervention had been performed, in order to provide data for follow-up. The participants in the test were unaccustomed to using a care plan at all and therefore had trouble grasping the full meaning of this concept.

Some of these differences may also relate to the two homecare teams’ different experience of working with documentation. In the original care team, the OLD@HOME project had triggered an interest in documentation issues, and during project time the HHS team was given room for reflection on documentation practices. Additional education with respect to care documentation had also been provided for that HHS team. The second team, that is the test participants, consisted of highly experienced healthcare professionals who were however less experienced in documenting the care provided. This may have affected the test results regarding system efficiency. Possibly we should have considered the differences in documentation experiences when limiting the task time for writing notes. However, the requirement from the HHS was to be able to document a note in a couple of minutes, thus the maximum time was accordingly set to 2 minutes.

These participants were to a higher extent more experienced in using computers than expected. Though they lacked experience of handheld ICT tools like the PDA, the novices quickly gained input skills. Surprisingly, there were only minor differences in input efficiency when compared to the experienced users. The tool itself was not an impediment to these participants and some of them also stated that the application could be directly inserted into their work practices.

Despite this acknowledgement, it is evident that specific contextual considerations are required before the VHR will be ready for implementation in a new homecare area. Further research areas could be to develop an evaluation method that joins lab results with subsequent field observations focusing on differences in the respective work practices. Joint results would improve the developers’ ability to adapt the system to the new context.

During the test, previously unknown problems were identified. The design of the VHR relied on both tabs and menus; general information was only to be found in a menu, whereas all individual health information was found in tabs. Despite the developers’ rationale for placing different information in tabs and menus, the participants had trouble conceptualizing the difference. The test demonstrated that the mix between menus and tabs made it difficult for novice users to find information. In the user satisfaction questionnaire the users preferred tabs to menus, consequently tabs should be the primary interaction component and, if needed, menus should only hold application information, such as File, Quit and User Status.

Another design flaw was the display of the three levels of interaction. The system contains a reading mode providing overview, where items are shown in lists, a detailed reading mode, where one item from a list is presented in detail, and a writing mode, which is accessible from the detailed reading mode. The novice users had difficulties identifying their current level, and how to navigate onwards from this point. According to Nielsen’s guide lines [17], you should always inform the user of current position and possible ways to continue. A potential solution could be to provide linked and clickable navigation icons (arrows) in the title bar.

In several of the tasks, extensive computer processing times were measured. In real work situations, the HHS staff make use of this waiting time by, for instance, opening the patient’s file before reaching his/her home. This enables the application database to process while the HHS is still approaching the patient’s home. In the lab, focus was on the PDA only, making the sometimes slower computer processing time quite frustrating. Therefore, long processing times were identified as a usability problem which future versions will need to address.

Despite the uncovered potential usability problems and the differences in context of use, the participants were overall positive after testing the system. Being real homecare staff, there are some grounds to claim that the results generated can be regarded as important indicators of possible problems with the effectiveness of the system. On the other hand, they acknowledged the user centred system development method used when developing the VHR. They expressed that the VHR seemed useful, that it corresponded to their daily working routines and was developed to meet their needs in a mobile environment. Additionally, they claimed it would indeed increase their sense of safety to have access to relevant information in their daily work.

Even though theory suggests that systems cannot be adequately evaluated by their developers [20], we still found it valuable to observe the participants using the VHR. Our observations led to additional ideas for system improvements. These ideas are now being fed into the iterative development process and will appear in the next VHR version.