ArticleDer Anaesthesist2019
[Comparison of current critical care information systems from the perspective of clinical users : Summary of the results of a German nationwide survey].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- User experience study to evaluate a clinical decision support system prototype supporting continuous kidney replacement therapy in a simulated ICU environment.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Barriers and Facilitators of the Use of Computerized Critical Care Information Systems in the Intensive Care Unit: Qualitative Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- [Quality of early sepsis diagnostics in German intensive care units-Results of a nationwide survey].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2025Article
- [Information technology and eHealth to improve patient safety].Der Internist · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCritical care information systems (CCIS) are computer-based systems designed to process the growing amount of complex medical data in intensive care units (ICU). Previous studies have shown that CCICs can increase the quality of patient care by reducing errors and improving work efficiency; however, other studies have shown that CCISs can also cause harmful effects by disrupting workflow, facilitating medication errors or increasing charting time. The factors that decide whether a CCIS has a positive or negative impact on patient care are summarized under the term "usability". This article summarizes the results of three previously published papers on this topic.
objectiveThe aim of the study was to identify which CCIS functions were considered useful by clinical ICU staff and how well these functions are implemented in the CCISs currently used in German ICUs. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn online survey was performed targeting nurses and physicians working in German ICUs using a previously validated questionnaire. The questionnaire included a list of functions (36 for physicians/31 for nurses) that were preselected by experts based on a comprehensive model of ICU work processes. Each of these functions was rated by the study participants on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (worst rating) to 5 (best rating) with respect to the usefulness to identify which functions of CCIS can truly be considered as useful by clinical ICU staff. Furthermore, the participants rated how well these functions were implemented in the CCIS currently in use on the ICU, also using a Likert scale of 0-5. Further questions were provided to rate specific technical usability aspects of the CCISs currently in use. In addition, to capture possible confounders the questionnaire recorded 18 individual and workspace characteristics which might influence the ratings.
resultsA total of 171 nurses and 741 physicians participated in the survey of which 535 used CCISs. Of the functions 33 were rated as useful for doctors and 28 functions for nurses with median scores between 4 and 5. Participants currently using CCISs gave higher ratings compared to participants not using CCISs. The quality of the functions was rated relatively lower than the usefulness and the availability. Furthermore, currently used CCISs in Germany differ greatly in their technical and task-specific usability. Of the CCISs investigated, the system ICUData had the best overall rating and technical usability followed by the systems ICM and MetaVision. The same three CCIS were rated best in task-specific functions without significant differences between them.
conclusionThose functions that were identified as useful based on the ratings of clinical ICU staff should be implemented in current CCIS. The list of these functions might be regarded as a first step towards providing a catalog of functional requirements for CCISs. Furthermore, as the results show that the quality of the available functions was rated lower than the availability of the functions, manufacturers should shift more of the effort away from the development of new features and focus on improving the user-friendliness and quality of existing functions.
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.