Content uploaded by Bradley N Doebbeling
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bradley N Doebbeling on Feb 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 2.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Workflow Integration Survey
Please think about the work involved in using the system during the simulated patient encounters and please
rate the extent to which you agree with each of the following statements. Please use the scale below where
1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree.
Inyourassessment,towhatextentdoyouagreethat: STRONGLY
DISAGREE DISAGREE NEUTRAL AGREE STRONGLY
AGREE DON’T
KNOW
1. Patient information is easy to find in CPRS Design 1. 1 2 3 4 5 9
2. CPRS Design 1 has all of the functions (e.g., order
entry, medication list) needed to complete face-to-face
patient encounters. 1 2 3 4 5 9
3. CPRS Design 1 is challenging to use. 1 2 3 4 5 9
4. Using CPRS Design 1 during face-to-face patient
encounters adds effort (e.g., typing, clicks). 1 2 3 4 5 9
5. Patient information is easily accessed with CPRS
Design 1. 1 2 3 4 5 9
6. CPRS Design 1 helps you perform the tasks (e.g.,
order entry, progress notes, record review) you need to
during face-to-face patient encounters. 1 2 3 4 5 9
7. CPRS Design 1 is easy to use. 1 2 3 4 5 9
8. Using CPRS Design 1 during face-to-face patient
encounters increases workload. 1 2 3 4 5 9
9. With CPRS Design 1, it is difficult to search for
patient information during face-to-face encounters. 1 2 3 4 5 9
10. The same information is entered into CPRS Design
1 multiple times during face-to-face patient encounters. 1 2 3 4 5 9
11. CPRS Design 1 is frustrating to use. 1 2 3 4 5 9
12. CPRS Design 1 helps you complete face-to-face
patient encounters efficiently. 1 2 3 4 5 9