ArticleACI open2024
A Usability Survey of a Quality Improvement Data Visualization Tool Among Medical Intensive Care Unit Nurses.
Article in ACI open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychometric evaluation of the Spanish-language version of the health information technology usability evaluation scale (Health-ITUES).International journal of medical informatics · 2026Article
- A Network Visualization Query System for Multidrug Compatibility Based on a WeChat Mini Program: Preliminary Usability and Efficiency Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Cognitive overload is prevalent among intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians. Data visualization may decrease cognitive load by assisting with data interpretation and task prioritization. We developed the Bundle Board to display real-time data from the electronic medical record (EMR), highlighting opportunities for action in standardized ICU patient care. This study evaluates the practical usability of this data visualization tool among nurses in the ICU. Methods: The tool is offered as an application separate from the EMR and was available in the medical ICU for eight months before we surveyed unit nursing staff. To evaluate usability of the tool, we adapted the Health-Information Technology Usability Scale (Health-ITUES) and included an option to provide open-ended feedback. Survey data was analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: ICU nurses were invited to participate through email and verbal announcements. Of the potential participants, 38% (N=47) responded. The survey demonstrated that the tool was perceived as usable. For each subscale, mean scores were as follows: Perceived Ease of Use 4.40, Impact 4.14, User Control 4.07, and Perceived Usefulness 3.61. There were no significant differences between core and contracted nurses or after stratifying by duration of Bundle Board use. Fifteen respondents completed the optional free-text portion of the survey. Qualitative analysis revealed six subthemes focusing on perceived impacts on quality and safety, cognitive burden and workload, and emotional impact of the Bundle Board. Conclusions: The Bundle Board demonstrated good usability among ICU Nurses, who provided substantive feedback for its improvement. These observations may be generalizable to other comparable interventions. Iterative feedback from end-users is vital to developing and implementing a digital health intervention. Our study provides a framework for performing a usability analysis within a specific clinician population and environment.
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.