Implementation and evaluation of an oncological case management system among public and private healthcare providers in Chile
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm2023122Keywords:
Management Systems, Usability, Cancer, Decision MakingAbstract
This article presented the implementation, results, and usability evaluation of a software solution designed to manage oncological cases between healthcare centers. The software was developed to facilitate the exchange of clinical and administrative data for patients referred to the Arturo López Peréz Foundation (FALP) through a charitable program. The software underwent iterative development and included features such as user roles, patient list, progress tracking, document upload and viewer, chat, DICOM viewer, sharing, download, and API integration. The usability of the software was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire, which showed high levels of usability and user satisfaction. The software proved successful in facilitating the coordination and continuity of care for patients referred to FALP and received positive feedback from users. The results of this study highlight the effectiveness and value of the software solution in improving case management and information exchange in the Chilean healthcare system. Future plans include expanding the software for internal patient management at FALP and extending its use to other institutions
References
1. Grupo de Trabajo Industria Salud Digital. Salud Digital: Una visión tecnológica para Chile. Available online in this link: https://paisdigital.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Documento-Vision-Grupo-Trabajo-Industria-Salud-1.pdf. June 2018.
2. Ministerio de Salud de Chile. Plan AUGE-GES. Available online in this link: https://www.chileatiende.gob.cl/fichas/2464-plan-auge-ges. July 2023.
3. Almomani I, Alsarheed A. Enhancing outpatient clinics management software by reducing patients’ waiting time. Journal of infection and public health. 2016 Nov 1;9(6):734-43.
4. Despa ML. Comparative study on software development methodologies. Database Systems Journal. 2014 Jul 1;5(3).
5. Attarha M, Modiri N. Focusing on the importance and the role of requirement engineering. InThe 4th International Conference on Interaction Sciences 2011 Aug 16 (pp. 181-184). IEEE.
6. Nerur S, Mahapatra R, Mangalaraj G. Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Communications of the ACM. 2005 May 1;48(5):72-8.
7. John B. SUS: a" quick and dirty" usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry. 1996:189-94.
8. Canova-Barrios C, Machuca-Contreras F. Interoperability standards in Health Information Systems: systematic review. Seminars in Medical Writing and Education 2022;1:7–7. https://doi.org/10.56294/mw20227
9. Inastrilla CRA. Big Data in Health Information Systems. Seminars in Medical Writing and Education 2022;1:6–6. https://doi.org/10.56294/mw20226
10. Lewis JR, Sauro J. Item benchmarks for the system usability scale. Journal of Usability Studies. 2018 May 1;13(3).
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sergio Peñafiel, Analia Hurtado, Marcela Aguirre, Inti Paredes, Vladimir Pizarro (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
