Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35275071›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

A Remote Patient-Monitoring System for Intensive Care Medicine: Mixed Methods Human-Centered Design and Usability Evaluation.

Akira-Sebastian Poncette, Lina Katharina Mosch, Lars Stablo, Claudia Spies, Monique Schieler, Steffen Weber-Carstens, Markus A Feufel, Felix Balzer

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03514173 (Analysis of Sociotechnical Acceptance and Workflow Integration of a Remote Patient Monitoring Device on an Intensive Care Unit), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT03514173 completednot on this map

Analysis of Sociotechnical Acceptance and Workflow Integration of a Remote Patient Monitoring Device on an Intensive Care Unit

TypeobservationalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2018 to 2023Enrolled208ConditionsRemote Patient Monitoring on Intensive Care UnitArmsRemote Patient Monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Akira-Sebastian Poncette *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4627-7016
Lina Katharina Mosch *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3154-2745
Lars StabloDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8569-1637
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1062-0495
Monique SchielerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7183-2360
Steffen Weber-CarstensDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7405-0172
Markus A FeufelDivision of Ergonomics, Department of Psychology and Ergonomics (IPA), Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0563-8831
Felix BalzerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1575-2056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous monitoring of vital signs is critical for ensuring patient safety in intensive care units (ICUs) and is becoming increasingly relevant in general wards. The effectiveness of health information technologies such as patient-monitoring systems is highly determined by usability, the lack of which can ultimately compromise patient safety. Usability problems can be identified and prevented by involving users (ie, clinicians).

objectiveIn this study, we aim to apply a human-centered design approach to evaluate the usability of a remote patient-monitoring system user interface (UI) in the ICU context and conceptualize and evaluate design changes.

methodsFollowing institutional review board approval (EA1/031/18), a formative evaluation of the monitoring UI was performed. Simulated use tests with think-aloud protocols were conducted with ICU staff (n=5), and the resulting qualitative data were analyzed using a deductive analytic approach. On the basis of the identified usability problems, we conceptualized informed design changes and applied them to develop an improved prototype of the monitoring UI. Comparing the UIs, we evaluated perceived usability using the System Usability Scale, performance efficiency with the normative path deviation, and effectiveness by measuring the task completion rate (n=5). Measures were tested for statistical significance using a 2-sample t test, Poisson regression with a generalized linear mixed-effects model, and the N-1 chi-square test. P<.05 were considered significant.

resultsWe found 37 individual usability problems specific to monitoring UI, which could be assigned to six subcodes: usefulness of the system, response time, responsiveness, meaning of labels, function of UI elements, and navigation. Among user ideas and requirements for the UI were high usability, customizability, and the provision of audible alarm notifications. Changes in graphics and design were proposed to allow for better navigation, information retrieval, and spatial orientation. The UI was revised by creating a prototype with a more responsive design and changes regarding labeling and UI elements. Statistical analysis showed that perceived usability improved significantly (System Usability Scale design A: mean 68.5, SD 11.26, n=5; design B: mean 89, SD 4.87, n=5; P=.003), as did performance efficiency (normative path deviation design A: mean 8.8, SD 5.26, n=5; design B: mean 3.2, SD 3.03, n=5; P=.001), and effectiveness (design A: 18 trials, failed 7, 39% times, passed 11, 61% times; design B: 20 trials, failed 0 times, passed 20 times; P=.002).

conclusionsUsability testing with think-aloud protocols led to a patient-monitoring UI with significantly improved usability, performance, and effectiveness. In the ICU work environment, difficult-to-use technology may result in detrimental outcomes for staff and patients. Technical devices should be designed to support efficient and effective work processes. Our results suggest that this can be achieved by applying basic human-centered design methods and principles.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03514173; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514173.

Indexed as

digital healthimplementation scienceintensive care medicineintensive care unitinterviewmixed methodsmobile phonepatient monitoringqualitative researchtechnological innovationusabilityuser-centered designuser experience

Identifiers

PMID35275071
PMCPMC8957007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.