ArticleApplied clinical informatics2024
Usability Testing of Situation Awareness Clinical Decision Support in the Intensive Care Unit.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06553534 (Situation Awareness Incorporating Multidisciplinary Teams Reduce Arrests In the Pediatric ICU in the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality Collaborative), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Situation Awareness Incorporating Multidisciplinary Teams Reduce Arrests In the Pediatric ICU in the Pediatric Resuscitation Quality Collaborative
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Equity in Usage and Effectiveness of the CONCERN Early Warning System.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Toward a Provider Builder Maturity Model to Empower Clinicians to Actively Participate in Electronic Health Record Design.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- Realizing the Full Potential of Clinical Decision Support: Translating Usability Testing into Routine Practice in Health Care Operations.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
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
objectiveOur objective was to evaluate the usability of an automated clinical decision support (CDS) tool previously implemented in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) to promote shared situation awareness among the medical team to prevent serious safety events within children's hospitals.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods usability evaluation of a CDS tool in a PICU at a large, urban, quaternary, free-standing children's hospital in the Midwest. Quantitative assessment was done using the system usability scale (SUS), while qualitative assessment involved think-aloud usability testing. The SUS was scored according to survey guidelines. For think-aloud testing, task times were calculated, and means and standard deviations were determined, stratified by role. Qualitative feedback from participants and moderator observations were summarized.
resultsFifty-one PICU staff members, including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and respiratory therapists, completed the SUS, while ten participants underwent think-aloud usability testing. The overall median usability score was 87.5 (interquartile range: 80-95), with over 96% rating the tool's usability as "good" or "excellent." Task completion times ranged from 2 to 92 seconds, with the quickest completion for reviewing high-risk criteria and the slowest for adding to high-risk criteria. Observations and participant responses from think-aloud testing highlighted positive aspects of learnability and clear display of complex information that is easily accessed, as well as opportunities for improvement in tool integration into clinical workflows.
conclusionThe PICU Warning Tool demonstrates good usability in the critical care setting. This study demonstrates the value of postimplementation usability testing in identifying opportunities for continued improvement of CDS tools.
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.