Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40192735›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Barriers and Facilitators of the Use of Computerized Critical Care Information Systems in the Intensive Care Unit: Qualitative Interview Study.

Alica Thissen, Eduardo Salgado-Baez, Daniel Fürstenau, Renate Delucchi Danhier, Christian Meske, Pauline Kuss, Stefan Angermair, Claudia Spies, Felix Balzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

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

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Alica Thissen *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7401-4865
Eduardo Salgado-Baez *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2207-8493
Daniel FürstenauInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8490-7707
Renate Delucchi DanhierInstitute for Diversity Studies, Department of Cultural Studies, TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8247-815X
Christian MeskeInstitute of Work Science, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5637-9433
Pauline KussInstitute of Work Science, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany.ORCID 0009-0005-1553-2039
Stefan AngermairDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5440-6968
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1062-0495
Felix BalzerInstitute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-2056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComputerized critical care information systems (CCIS) can have a range of positive to negative impacts on clinical care in ICUs and the job satisfaction of ICU staff. Key factors influencing these effects include the usability of the IT system and the level of training provided. Resistance to using the system may arise from users due to increased control imposed by the system and from insufficient participation in its development and configuration. The usability of CCIS, along with other important barriers such as co-determination, has not been thoroughly examined.

objectiveThe study investigates barriers to using CCIS and aims to provide actionable recommendations for manufacturing companies and hospitals to ensure the successful implementation and use of CCIS. It focuses on known usability factors while incorporating open feedback from current users to uncover new insights and identify additional usability factors not previously documented in the literature.

methodsWe conducted 10 semistructured qualitative interviews with ICU staff (4 nurses and 6 doctors) from 3 ICUs at a large German university hospital. Each interview lasted 1 hour and focused on providing a collective assessment of the CCIS. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using MAXQDA and then analyzed through both deductive and inductive content structure methods.

resultsA total of 86 distinct usability issues were identified and categorized into 7 main groups and 23 subgroups. The most common usability issues were (1) unclear information presentation, especially for medication; (2) overly lengthy or small interaction steps in documentation; (3) missing or scattered information across sections; (4) redundant data entry requirements; and (5) slow system speed. Additionally, other challenges associated with system usage included training, co-determination, the perception of feeling constrained, adherence to standard operating procedures, and changes in processes. Participants in the study highlighted that the level of contentment with the system has a direct influence on their job satisfaction.

conclusionsCCIS usability greatly influences satisfaction with the information technology system. Enhancing CCIS usability requires ongoing user testing and transparent employee involvement. Adequate training and standard operating procedure implementation are crucial. Investing time and financial resources in organizational frameworks and feedback mechanisms is an imperative for the successful implementation of CCIS.

Indexed as

Critical CareIntensive Care UnitsGermanyHumansInterviews as TopicQualitative Researchco-determinationcomputerized critical care information systemICUintensive care unitusabilityuser-centered design

Identifiers

PMID40192735
PMCPMC12413570

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.