ArticleIISE transactions on occupational ergonomics and human factors2018
Ambulatory Clinic Exam Room Design with respect to Computing Devices: A Laboratory Simulation Study.
Article in IISE transactions on occupational ergonomics and human factors, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinicians' use of Health Information Exchange technologies for medication reconciliation in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: a qualitative analysis.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Characterizing Multitasking and Workflow Fragmentation in Electronic Health Records among Emergency Department Clinicians: Using Time-Motion Data to Understand Documentation Burden.Applied clinical informatics · 2021Article
- Article
- Reducing delays to diagnosis in ambulatory care settings: A macrocognition perspective.Applied ergonomics · 2020Article
- Provider Preference in Exam Room Layout Design and Computing.Applied clinical informatics · 2019Article
- Field Investigation of Ambulatory Clinic Exam Room Design with respect to Computing Devices: A Pilot Study.Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society ... Annual Meeting. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Annual meeting · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundChallenges persist regarding how to integrate computing effectively into the exam room, while maintaining patient-centered care. PURPOSE: Our objective was to evaluate a new exam room design with respect to the computing layout, which included a wall-mounted monitor for ease of (re)-positioning.
methodsIn a lab-based experiment, 28 providers used prototypes of the new and older "legacy" outpatient exam room layouts in a within-subject comparison using simulated patient encounters. We measured efficiency, errors, workload, patient-centeredness (proportion of time the provider was focused on the patient), amount of screen sharing with the patient, workflow integration, and provider situation awareness.
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the exam room layouts for efficiency, errors, or time spent focused on the patient. However, when using the new layout providers spent 75% more time in screen sharing activities with the patient, had 31% lower workload, and gave higher ratings for situation awareness (14%) and workflow integration (17%).
conclusionsProviders seemed to be unwilling to compromise their focus on the patient when the computer was in a fixed position in the corner of the room and, as a result, experienced greater workload, lower situation awareness, and poorer workflow integration when using the old "legacy" layout. A thoughtful design of the exam room with respect to the computing may positively impact providers' workload, situation awareness, time spent in screen sharing activities, and workflow integration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.