25gmds201 10.3205/25gmds201 urn:nbn:de:0183-25gmds2016 Meeting Abstract Mess Mess Elisabeth Veronica EV

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Regner Regner Matthias M

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Kleybolte Kleybolte Lukas L

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Werlitz Werlitz Viktor V

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Balic Balic Sabahudin S

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Petter Petter Adrian A

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Halbritter Halbritter Andreas A

Institut für innovative Sicherheit, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Tilmes Tilmes Sabrina S

Stabstelle Digitale Vernetzung, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Daufratshofer Daufratshofer Lisa L

Stabstelle Digitale Vernetzung, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Ebertsch Ebertsch Kathrin K

Stabstelle Digitale Vernetzung, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Weibel Weibel Ann-Kathrin AK

Institut DigiHealth, Hochschule Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany

author Seifert Seifert Nadine N

Institut DigiHealth, Hochschule Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany

author Swoboda Swoboda Walter W

Institut DigiHealth, Hochschule Neu-Ulm, Neu-Ulm, Germany

author Merli Merli Dominik D

Institut für innovative Sicherheit, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Reuter Reuter Claudia C

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Mahler Mahler Andreas A

Stabstelle Digitale Vernetzung, Universitätsklinikum Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author Teynor Teynor Alexandra A

Institut für agile Softwareentwicklung, Technische Hochschule Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

author German Medical Science GMS Publishing House

Düsseldorf

610 care transition records CTR telematics infrastructure TI MIO PIO-ULB HL7 FHIR PIO-ULB Editor 20260401 engl This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). M0631 201 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie 70. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e. V. (GMDS) PS 2: Interoperability and standards Jena 20250907 20250911 Abstr. 74 TextIntroduction: Care transition records (German: Überleitungsbogen – ULB) are crucial for ensuring continuity of care when patients transition between healthcare institutions. A standardized, digital exchange of care data would be beneficial; however, the current transmission process in Germany remains fragmented, with paper-based workflows leading to delays, data loss, and inefficiencies , .The German National Association of Statutory Health Insurers (Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung, KBV) is legally mandated to specify standardized data exchange formats for medical and care information, known as the medical information object (medizinisches Informationsobjekt, MIO) and care information objects (pflegerisches Informationsobjekt, PIO). The first PIO to be specified was the PIO-ULB; however, the adoption remains limited. The authors created and tested a reference implementation of this new standard in form of a web-based application to gain insights into its suitability, applicability, and potential challenges, and to support the adoption of this new format.Methods: For the design and development, an agile process was combined with the principles of user-centered design (UCD) . The resulting web application (PIO-ULB Editor) supports about two-thirds of the full PIO-ULB standard and enables the creation, modification, and export of CIO-CTRs. Five German institutions – comprising one university hospital and four long-term care facilities – tested the prototype. Eight professionals (registered nurses) executed five scenario-based tasks: (1) create a CTR, (2) export the XML file, (3) transmit it via the Telematics-Infrastructure KIM service or encrypted e-mail, (4) import the received file, and (5) integrate the data into the local electronic record. Task-completion time, success rate, error logs, and think-aloud comments were captured. User experience was measured using the short User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S) , and overall usability was assessed with the System Usability Scale (SUS) .Results: N=16 observation sessions were analysed. Sites that completed the entire workflow (tasks 1-5) (n = 3) required a mean of 23.6 ± 12.6 minutes; the hospital was the fastest (15.8 ± 1.9 minutes), whereas long-term-care facilities averaged 27.5 ± 14.0 minutes. The UEQ-S pragmatic quality scored 1.78, the overall user experience 0.95, which exceeds the +0.8 positive threshold. SUS scores ranged from 35 to 77.5 (median = 71); higher values were observed in sites with prior experience using the standard. Participants appreciated auto-completion and the overall design of the PIO-ULB Editor.Discussion: With the creation of the PIO-ULB Editor, it was possible to test the usability and feasibility of the PIO-ULB standard, but only with a limited number of participants. It is the first publicly available reference implementation, offering a basis for discussion and further improvement. Care professionals' feedback indicated that the Editor is useful; however, even after reducing the amount of information, the content is still overwhelming. This underscores the need for graduate training and suggests that a revision of the standard may be necessary.The manual data transfer, after exporting the PIO-ULB, remains a bottleneck. Additionally, voluntary adoption is slowed by the absence of regulatory deadlines. The artefacts and insights reported (see https://www.pio-editor.de) can support the nationwide adoption of the standard by primary manufacturers of hospitals and care facilities.The authors declare that they have no competing interests.The authors declare that an ethics committee vote is not required. Nohl-Deryk P Brinkmann J Gerlach F Schreyögg J Achelrod D Hürden bei der Digitalisierung der Medizin in Deutschland – eine Expertenbefragung 2018 Das Gesundheitswesen 939–945 Nohl-Deryk P, Brinkmann J, Gerlach F, Schreyögg J, Achelrod D. Hürden bei der Digitalisierung der Medizin in Deutschland – eine Expertenbefragung. Das Gesundheitswesen. 2018 Nov;80(11):939–945. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-121010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-121010 Hansen A Perception of the Progressing Digitization and Transformation of the German Health Care System Among Experts and the Public: Mixed Methods Study 2019 JMIR Public Health Surveill e14689 Hansen A, et al. Perception of the Progressing Digitization and Transformation of the German Health Care System Among Experts and the Public: Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2019 Oct;5(4):e14689. DOI: 10.2196/14689 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/14689 Lowdermilk T 2013 User-Centered Design: A Developer’s Guide to Building User-Friendly Applications Lowdermilk T. User-Centered Design: A Developer’s Guide to Building User-Friendly Applications. O’Reilly Media; 2013. Schrepp M Hinderks A Thomaschewski J Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S) 2017 International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence 103 Schrepp M, Hinderks A, Thomaschewski J. Design and Evaluation of a Short Version of the User Experience Questionnaire (UEQ-S). International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence. 2017;4(6):103. DOI: 10.9781/ijimai.2017.09.001 http://dx.doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2017.09.001 Brooke J SUS: A ‘Quick’ and ‘Dirty’ Usability Scale 1996 Usability Evaluation in Industry 189–194 Brooke J. SUS: A ‘Quick’ and ‘Dirty’ Usability Scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeestr BA, McClelland L, editors. Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis; 1996. ch. 21. p. 189–194. 0 0 0 0