Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38124136›Full record

ArticleBMJ quality & safety2024

How to co-design a prototype of a clinical practice tool: a framework with practical guidance and a case study.

Matthew Woodward, Mary Dixon-Woods, Wendy Randall, Caroline Walker, Chloe Hughes, Sarah Blackwell, Louise Dewick, Rachna Bahl, Tim Draycott, Cathy Winter and 14 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

24 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew WoodwardTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4249-1947
Mary Dixon-WoodsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5915-0041
Wendy RandallThe Royal College of Midwives, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0934-3806
Caroline WalkerThe Royal College of Midwives, London, UK.
Chloe HughesThe Royal College of Midwives, London, UK.
Sarah BlackwellThe Royal College of Midwives, London, UK.
Louise DewickRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.
Rachna BahlRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.
Tim DraycottRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1825-4864
Cathy WinterPROMPT Maternity Foundation, Bristol, UK.
Akbar AnsariTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Alison PowellTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2524-5357
Janet WillarsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7886-3223
Imogen A F BrownTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4393-0956
Annabelle OlssonTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3792-0575
Natalie RichardsTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5673-751X
Joann LeedingTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6093-8709
Lisa HintonTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6082-3151
Jenni BurtTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0037-274X
Giulia MaistrelloRAND Europe, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2099-006X
Charlotte DaviesRAND Europe, Cambridge, UK.
Thiscovery Authorship Group
ABC Contributor Group
Jan W van der ScheerTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK jan.vanderscheer@thisinstitute.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4368-0355
University of Cambridge · GBRoyal College of Midwives · GBRoyal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists · GBRAND Europe · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical tools for use in practice-such as medicine reconciliation charts, diagnosis support tools and track-and-trigger charts-are endemic in healthcare, but relatively little attention is given to how to optimise their design. User-centred design approaches and co-design principles offer potential for improving usability and acceptability of clinical tools, but limited practical guidance is currently available. We propose a framework (FRamework for co-dESign of Clinical practice tOols or 'FRESCO') offering practical guidance based on user-centred methods and co-design principles, organised in five steps: (1) establish a multidisciplinary advisory group; (2) develop initial drafts of the prototype; (3) conduct think-aloud usability evaluations; (4) test in clinical simulations; (5) generate a final prototype informed by workshops. We applied the framework in a case study to support co-design of a prototype track-and-trigger chart for detecting and responding to possible fetal deterioration during labour. This started with establishing an advisory group of 22 members with varied expertise. Two initial draft prototypes were developed-one based on a version produced by national bodies, and the other with similar content but designed using human factors principles. Think-aloud usability evaluations of these prototypes were conducted with 15 professionals, and the findings used to inform co-design of an improved draft prototype. This was tested with 52 maternity professionals from five maternity units through clinical simulations. Analysis of these simulations and six workshops were used to co-design the final prototype to the point of readiness for large-scale testing. By codifying existing methods and principles into a single framework, FRESCO supported mobilisation of the expertise and ingenuity of diverse stakeholders to co-design a prototype track-and-trigger chart in an area of pressing service need. Subject to further evaluation, the framework has potential for application beyond the area of clinical practice in which it was applied.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineResearch DesignFemaleHumansPregnancyUser-Centered DesignHealthcare quality improvementHuman factorsObstetrics and gynecologyQuality improvement methodologiesTrigger tools

Identifiers

PMID38124136
PMCPMC10982632
OpenAlexW4389611827

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.