Human-technology interface, frequently termed User Interface (UI), is a medium through which humans use technology systems to operate and perform various functions. It links the user’s cognitive processes and the machine’s abilities, supporting fluid communication and usage. A well-designed human-techno user experience is more comfortable, and the techno and logy turning turns more intuitive, efficient, and user-friendly. However, the human-technology interface incorporates a range of input devices, interfaces, and controls that enable users to input data, gain access to information, and manipulate the system. The building blocks of computer interfaces may refer to physical devices like keyboards, mice, touchscreens, or virtual elements that can use voice commands or gesture inputs. The input mechanisms should be in concordance with the user’s natural interaction and cognitive processes, allowing them to operate the system with minimum mental stress.
The other central area of the human-technology interface is visual design, which captures the overall layout, color schemes, fonts, and icons in how information is presented and displayed to the user. If feasible, applying proven design principles, including uniformity, hierarchy, and affordances, will improve the interface’s intuitiveness and learnability. For example, the frequent location of navigation elements or known icons encourages users’ rapid acquisition and understanding of all available actions (Pakulska & Urszula Religioni, 2024). Feedback and error management are the two building blocks of successful human-technology interfaces. Feedback through visual cues, audio signals, or haptic responses to show users the current system condition and confirm successful operation is very significant. Similarly, well-thought-out error messages should be informative, actionable, and user-friendly, albeit using a method that allows users to recover from mistakes and unexpected situations without frustration or confusion.
The interface between humans and technology is crucial in achieving excellent results in implementing and accepting technology in medical centers. A well-designed interface can make the user experience efficient, safe, and easier to use, and a well-designed interface will frustrate users, make them error-free, and discourage them from using the technology.
User-friendly and intuitive interfaces that can be easily navigated and used at work help health professionals be open to new tech and minimize interruptions. These systems require a short learning curve (Pakulska & Urszula Religioni, 2024). Suppose healthcare personnel can put their hands on a technology that is simple to use and can be integrated with their current procedures. In that case, they are more likely to adopt and use it consistently to improve patient care and operational efficiencies.
On the contrary, it is complex or counter to the intuitive interfaces that can lead to low compliance, low productivity, and even medical errors. When a system is considered difficult to use or regarded as a barrier to health workers’ work, they might resist it, causing the intended benefits of the technology to vanish (Pakulska & Urszula Religioni, 2024). It can lead to complete or accurate data entry, increased job workload, and patient safety risks. Additionally, a lousy human-technology interface can add to the cognitive overload and fatigue among healthcare professionals, worsening the risk of errors and compromising patient care. Suppose there is no predictive backup for the failed action. Consequently, the probability of mistakes or manual errors will rise with the user’s effort to search through numerous service menus, decipher complicated error messages, and memorize several systems during the process.
In 2009, the pivotal congressional act was the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, which was the first step in establishing the means of information exchange between people and other health technologies (Pijnen, 2022). The US healthcare system is trying to successfully transition to determinative EHR usage and other healthcare information technologies (HIT) by the legislative rules.
The HITECH Act articulated the importance of a user-centered approach, constituting user-centered criteria in constructing EHRs and other HIT systems, which was the core demand. Reacting to the needs and work habits of the medical professionals, the systems are effective, fast, and user-friendly as a focus is being made on habit formation, and the human-technology interface is being considered.
Validated electronic health record systems that satisfy set criteria for usability and interoperability are mandatory, and the HITECH Act facilitates application and provides standards that advance their use. EHRs and other health IT technologies were built with a target to be non-disruptive to health professionals, which led to the creation of these guidelines to allow this. Also, the HIT systems for navigation and user-centered design guidelines were included and aligned with the HITECH program through the ONC (Pijnen, 2022). ONC has wide contacts in the health industry and works with vendors, service providers, and patient groups to endorse industry standards for the application of health technology. They set guidelines that manufacturing of healthcare technology must be based on user-friendliness, accessibility, and safety issues.
A range of strategies to increase usability and user-centered design has been implemented. Still, there have been several cases where this method has been detrimental and has affected the health and the quality of patient care. Besides the instances mentioned above, they spotlight the crucialness of fixing interface problems and the negative impact of overlooking users’ experience during health technologies development and deployment.
Poor usability of EHR systems is evident in medication administration errors due to unsuitable EHR system design. A 2015 Journal of Patient Safety article estimated that medication administration mistakes were at the heart of 7,000 patient fatalities in the United States annually, and a sizeable part of these errors had to do with EHR utilization problems.
The intricacies of the concerns caused by these EHR systems encompass complex and perplexed user interfaces, deficiency of standardized systems, and insufficient alerts and decision support features (Konttila et al., 2019). Such mistakes ranged from drug dosage calculation errors and erroneous medication scheduling to patient identification failings causing adverse drug events, worsening of existing conditions or even causing harm or death to the patients concerned.
To help remedy these challenges, initiatives are in progress to improve EHR usability and standardization, like implementing user-centered design principles and adopting industry standards (Konttila et al., 2019). Nevertheless, EHR systems and other HIT tools constantly depend on user feedback, usability testing, and the iterative improvement of the user interface to make them have both intuitive and user-friendly interfaces, which decrease the risk of medication errors and enhance patient safety.
One of the effects of human-technology interfaces is the situation of a hospital that stopped using the Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) system due to many usability problems and workflow disturbances. As reported in the Koppel et al. (2005) case study, that system had a complex and non-intuitive interface, which led to increased workload for healthcare professionals, multiple order entering errors and patient care.
The fundamental problems faced by this CPOE system were a cumbersome user interface that involved many processes for completing routine tasks, disintegration with the existing clinical workflows, and inadequate user training and support. Those usability issues caused mistakes during order entry, delayed treatment, and lower patient outcomes. As a result of these problems, the hospital eventually decided to desist from implementing this CPOE system and opted to revert to paper-based ordering until a more intuitive and user-friendly system could be implemented (Konttila et al., 2019). This decision underlines a small mistake for healthcare technologies that need to place user experience and usability as the top priority.
It is critical to get end-users (healthcare professionals) involved in the design and development process of healthcare technologies to prevent similar scenarios from being released in the future (Jedwab, 2023). Vendors and healthcare organizations actively seek to interact with those using the systems in their daily activities to determine the unique needs and operations of different healthcare settings, making interfaces suitable for the various clinical settings. In addition, usability testing that covers the entire development lifecycle before going live will ensure the unveiling of any issues that can harm patient care. Usability testing must involve real users undertaking actual assignments, thus allowing developers to see and solve usability challenges and workflow breaks (Jedwab, 2023). Moreover, delivering comprehensive training with ongoing support and assistance for healthcare professionals is critical to the successful adoption of technology. The most intelligent, well-designed interface may be inefficient when the end-users have yet to be adequately trained on its various features and functions. Healthcare organizations should invest in public education and provide readily available channels of support for the sake of the prevention of any problems and the correct application of the new technology.
In conclusion, human-technology interactions are essential to successful technology implementation in healthcare settings. Poorly designed interfaces often lead to user frustration and inaccuracies, resulting in delayed adoption and compromising patients’ safety and quality of care. Patient-centered design, usability testing, and engagement of patients in the development process are critical elements for health organizations that want to build valuable and user-friendly systems that guarantee the successful integration of technology into clinical practice. The abovementioned cases bring home the importance that if the human-machine relation is ignored or not adequately dealt with, some disastrous problems may arise. Yet, the healthcare industry can use this technology to improve patient health outcomes, reduce clinical workflow processes, and eventually increase the quality of care by learning and comparing itself to the past and building on usability and user experience. The human-technology interface problems can be solved only through the actions taken by healthcare providers, technology vendors, policy-makers, and patient advocates. Achieving that goal is possible by putting the users at the center of the design, promoting open communications, and continuously improving the solutions based on feedback. In such a way, the technology of the healthcare system would perfectly synchronize with the human factor, and the healthcare system would become safer, more efficient, and more patient-centric. Healthcare revolutionization is paved by bridging the divide between people’s needs and technology by offering user-friendly and easy-to-understand interfaces.
Jedwab, Rebecca M., et al. “Impacts of technology implementation on nurses’ work motivation, engagement, satisfaction and Well‐Being: a realist review.” Journal of clinical nursing 32.17-18 (2023): 6037-6060.
Konttila, J., Siira, H., Kyngäs, H., Lahtinen, M., Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., … & Mikkonen, K. (2019). Healthcare professionals’ competence in digitalisation: A systematic review. Journal of clinical nursing, 28(5-6), 745-761.
Pakulska, T., & Urszula Religioni. (2023). Implementation of technology in healthcare entities – barriers and success factors. Journal of Medical Economics, 26(1), 821–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696998.2023.2226537
Pijnen, J. (Lisette) van G. -. (2022). Implementation of health technology: Directions for research and practice. Frontiers in Digital Health, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2022.1030194