Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27704138›Full record

ArticleApplied clinical informatics2016

Toward Designing Information Display to Support Critical Care. A Qualitative Contextual Evaluation and Visioning Effort.

Melanie C Wright, Sherry Dunbar, Brekk C Macpherson, Eugene W Moretti, Guillherme Del Fiol, Jean Bolte, Jeffrey M Taekman, Noa Segall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Novel displays of patient information in critical care settings: a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Melanie C WrightMelanie C. Wright, PhD, Program Director, Patient Safety Research, Trinity Health and Saint Alphonsus Health System, 1055 N. Curtis Rd, Boise ID 83702, Email: melanie.wright@trinity-health.org, Phone: 208-367-7399.
Sherry Dunbar
Brekk C Macpherson
Eugene W Moretti
Guillherme Del Fiol
Jean Bolte
Jeffrey M Taekman
Noa Segall

Funding

Right Place, Right Time: Information Design to Support Decisions in Acute CareR56LM011925 · NLM · SAINT ALPHONSUS REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER · PI WRIGHT, MELANIE C · 2015 to 2016
$544k
Toward Intelligent Display of Health Data: A Qualitative Study of Use PatternsR21LM010700 · NLM · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI SEGALL, NOA · 2011 to 2012
$414k
AHRQ HHS K02 HS015704NLM NIH HHS R21 LM010700NLM NIH HHS R56 LM011925
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesElectronic health information overload makes it difficult for providers to quickly find and interpret information to support care decisions. The purpose of this study was to better understand how clinicians use information in critical care to support the design of improved presentation of electronic health information.

methodsWe conducted a contextual analysis and visioning project. We used an eye-tracker to record 20 clinicians' information use activities in critical care settings. We played video recordings back to clinicians in retrospective cued interviews and queried: 1) context and goals of information use, 2) impacts of current display design on use, and 3) processes related to information use. We analyzed interview transcripts using grounded theory-based content analysis techniques and identified emerging themes. From these, we conducted a visioning activity with a team of subject matter experts and identified key areas for focus of design and research for future display designs.

resultsAnalyses revealed four unique critical care information use activities including new patient assessment, known patient status review, specific directed information seeking, and review and prioritization of multiple patients. Emerging themes were primarily related to a need for better representation of dynamic data such as vital signs and laboratory results, usability issues associated with reducing cognitive load and supporting efficient interaction, and processes for managing information. Visions for the future included designs that: 1) provide rapid access to new information, 2) organize by systems or problems as well as by current versus historical patient data, and 3) apply intelligence toward detecting and representing change and urgency.

conclusionsThe results from this study can be used to guide the design of future acute care electronic health information display. Additional research and collaboration is needed to refine and implement intelligent graphical user interfaces to improve clinical information organization and prioritization to support care decisions.

Indexed as

Critical CareData DisplayElectronic Health RecordsDecision MakingHumansUser-Computer Interfaceclinical decision supportclinical documentation and communicationsElectronic health records and systemshuman-computer interactionintensive and critical careinterfaces and usabilitymonitoring and surveillancequalitativesafety

Identifiers

PMID27704138
PMCPMC5228134

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.