ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Acceptance and Usability of a Web Application for Patient Care Level Classification in German Clinical Nursing Care: A Pilot Study.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The German Federal Ministry of Health introduced the Pflegepersonalregelung 2.0 (PPR 2.0) to address the nursing staffing crisis. It establishes a framework to determine personnel requirements, ensuring adequate staffing. However, the required daily classification of patient care levels imposes a significant administrative burden on nursing staff. Digitizing this process may reduce documentation time and enhance efficiency, but effectiveness depends on usability and acceptance.This study evaluates the acceptance and usability of a direct digitization of the analog PPR 2.0 classification catalog into a digital user interface-the PPR 2.0 Calculator.A mixed-methods approach was used, combining quantitative assessment using the Technology Acceptance Model 3 (TAM 3) and the System Usability Scale (SUS), with qualitative insights from a semistructured interview. Fifteen nursing staff members from a pediatric rheumatology clinic in Germany participated.The PPR 2.0 Calculator was rated highly usable, with strong scores for Perceived Ease of Use (4.00) and Computer Self-Efficacy (4.09). Participants required minimal technical support, indicating an intuitive interface. However, Perceived Usefulness (2.82) and Job Relevance (2.53) scores were lower, suggesting limited value in daily workflows. The SUS score (65.50) was slightly below the benchmark of 68, indicating good usability with moderate room for improvement.Digitizing the analog PPR 2.0 catalog resulted in good usability, but significant challenges regarding practical relevance and workflow integration remained. Directly adopting the catalog content negatively affected perceived usefulness and job relevance, revealing limitations in the classification framework itself. Refinement of the PPR 2.0 framework is needed to reflect real-world clinical nursing tasks. Seamless integration with existing infrastructures and structured documentation is also critical. Future improvements should go beyond simple digitization and explore automated classification features.
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.