HCI 670 Designing Electronic Forms
Two sites, two intake forms, one electronic form. The hard part is not layout: it is deciding what happens to the fields the two sites do not share.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 25, 2026
Merging two forms is a vocabulary problem, not a layout problem
The assignment looks like a formatting exercise and is not. Two sites have been collecting navigator intake data on their own paper forms, which means they have two field sets, two sets of response options and two implicit definitions of the same concept. Merging them forces a decision on every field that is not identical: keep both and accept a longer form, adopt one site's version and lose the other's data continuity, or write a superset that neither site currently collects. There is no free option, and saying which you chose and why is most of the rationale. Distress screening is the clearest example, since one site may record a single score and the other a checklist of problem domains, and those cannot simply be concatenated without deciding which one the downstream referral trigger reads. A navigator handed both versions will simply trust whichever one appears first on the screen.
Heuristic principles are named in the brief, so use the actual heuristics rather than generic advice about being user-friendly. Nielsen's set gives you the vocabulary a marker expects: recognition rather than recall, so a navigator picks from defined options instead of remembering codes; consistency and standards, so the same concept is captured the same way everywhere; error prevention, through constrained fields, required-field logic and sensible defaults; and a match between the system and the real world, so field order follows the sequence of the intake conversation rather than the sequence of the old paper. Then connect the design to care in the third part: an intake form aids the navigator when it makes the next action visible, which means triggers, referral routing and the specific fields that fire them, and that is what electronic conversion buys you over paper. A field nobody ever acts on is a field worth cutting from the merged form.
Likely learning objectives
- Recognise form merging as a reconciliation of two clinical vocabularies.
- Apply named usability heuristics rather than general design advice.
- Use constrained fields and defaults as error prevention.
- Connect documentation design to a navigator's next clinical action.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
The purpose of this assignment is to design a clinical form to be used for oncology RN navigators. Read the \”Integrated Case Study\” resource and review the \”Oncology North: Navigator Intake Paper Form\” and \”Oncology South: Oncology Navigator Intake Form\” prior to beginning the assignment. Based upon the case study and two intake forms, use an Excel spreadsheet or Word document to design a custom form that merges the paper documents and converts them to an electronic form. Be sure to include the different custom fields and topics necessary for navigating the form. Along with your form, include a 250-word rationale in which you: Describe the heuristic principles used to design the clinical form. Explain how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care. Explain the rationale of the design. Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required. This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. You are not required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
What the HCI 670 form assignment requires
- 01A custom electronic form, in Excel or Word, merging the Oncology North and Oncology South paper intake forms.
- 02Custom fields and topics necessary for navigating the form.
- 03A 250-word rationale describing the heuristic principles used in the design.
- 04An explanation of how the documentation aids the oncology RN navigator in providing quality patient care.
- 05An explanation of the rationale of the design.
- 06APA formatting per the Style Guide, with no abstract required.
From reconciliation to rationale
What each source form collects
Set the two field sets side by side and mark where they diverge.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Divergence identified rather than assumed away.
Reconciliation decisions
Resolve each conflicting field and record the reason.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A stated trade-off on each decision.
The form structure
Group fields into topics that follow the intake conversation.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Order driven by workflow rather than by the old paper.
Heuristic principles applied
Name each principle and point at the field that embodies it.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Principles tied to specific design choices.
How the form aids the navigator
Show the triggers, routing and prompts the electronic version makes possible.
What the assessor is likely looking for
A concrete care benefit rather than a claim about efficiency.
Design rationale summary
Draw the decisions together inside the 250-word limit.
What the assessor is likely looking for
Compression without losing the reasoning.
Where the usability and form-design evidence sits
Recommended databases
- Nielsen Norman Group
- NIST
- PubMed Central
- AHRQ
Search sequence
- 1.Read the usability heuristics so the rationale uses their actual names.
- 2.Look at NIST's EHR usability evaluation work for the health-specific application.
- 3.Find literature on clinician involvement in EHR design for the reconciliation problem.
- 4.Check evidence on documentation usability and safety for the care-quality argument.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design
Nielsen Norman Group · 1994
The ten usability heuristics, for the principles the rationale must name.
(NISTIR 7804) Technical Evaluation, Testing and Validation of the Usability of Electronic Health Records
National Institute of Standards and Technology · 2012
NIST's EHR usability evaluation, for how these principles are assessed in clinical systems.
Involving Health Care Professionals in the Development of Electronic Health Records: Scoping Review
JMIR Human Factors · 2023
Involving clinicians in EHR development, for who should settle a field-level conflict.
Mind the Gap: A systematic review to identify usability and safety challenges and practices during electronic health record implementation
Applied Clinical Informatics · 2016
Usability and safety challenges in EHR implementation, for the risk side of design choices.
Human factors in healthcare IT: Management considerations and trends
Journal of Hospital Management and Health Policy · 2023
Human factors in healthcare IT, for connecting form design to clinical work.
Before you submit the form and rationale
Common mistakes
- Concatenating the two forms instead of reconciling conflicting fields.
- Writing about being user-friendly instead of naming heuristics.
- Leaving free-text fields where a constrained list would prevent error.
- Preserving paper field order rather than the order of the intake conversation.
- Describing the form without saying what action any field triggers.
Submission checklist
- Is every conflicting field between the two forms explicitly resolved?
- Are named heuristic principles used in the rationale?
- Do constrained fields and defaults appear where error is likely?
- Does the rationale connect at least one field to a downstream referral or action?
- Is the rationale close to 250 words?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.