AIM: To evaluate the effect of observation chart design on the ability of health professionals and novice chart users to recognise patient deterioration. METHODS: Participants were 45 health professionals (doctors and nurses) and 46 novices. Each participant completed 48 trials in which they viewed realistic patient observations recorded on six hospital observation charts of differing design quality. Each chart design was used on eight trials, four times with normal data and four times with abnormal data. On each trial, the participant's task was to identify any abnormal observation or else to indicate that all observations were normal (based on normal physiological ranges given in the instructions). The main outcome measures were participants' error rates and response times for detecting abnormal observations on each of the six charts. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of chart type on error rates (p<0.001), but health professionals made the same number of errors as novices (p=0.43). Chart type also had a significant effect on response times (p<0.001). Health professionals responded faster overall than novices (p=0.006); however, a significant interaction between chart type and participant group (p=0.02) indicated that the health professionals' advantage was confined to the two most rudimentary charts. No significant differences were found between doctors and nurses on either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that observation chart design has a substantial impact on the decision accuracy and response times of both health professionals and novices in recognising abnormal patient observations.
AIM: To evaluate the effect of observation chart design on the ability of health professionals and novice chart users to recognise patient deterioration. METHODS:Participants were 45 health professionals (doctors and nurses) and 46 novices. Each participant completed 48 trials in which they viewed realistic patient observations recorded on six hospital observation charts of differing design quality. Each chart design was used on eight trials, four times with normal data and four times with abnormal data. On each trial, the participant's task was to identify any abnormal observation or else to indicate that all observations were normal (based on normal physiological ranges given in the instructions). The main outcome measures were participants' error rates and response times for detecting abnormal observations on each of the six charts. RESULTS: There was a significant effect of chart type on error rates (p<0.001), but health professionals made the same number of errors as novices (p=0.43). Chart type also had a significant effect on response times (p<0.001). Health professionals responded faster overall than novices (p=0.006); however, a significant interaction between chart type and participant group (p=0.02) indicated that the health professionals' advantage was confined to the two most rudimentary charts. No significant differences were found between doctors and nurses on either measure. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that observation chart design has a substantial impact on the decision accuracy and response times of both health professionals and novices in recognising abnormal patient observations.
Authors: Doug Elliott; Sharon McKinley; Lin Perry; Christine Duffield; Rick Iedema; Robyn Gallagher; Margaret Fry; Michael Roche; Emily Allen Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2014-08-12
Authors: Gerri Sefton; Steven Lane; Roger Killen; Stuart Black; Max Lyon; Pearl Ampah; Cathryn Sproule; Dominic Loren-Gosling; Caitlin Richards; Jean Spinty; Colette Holloway; Coral Davies; April Wilson; Chung Shen Chean; Bernie Carter; E D Carrol Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Victoria Campbell; Roger Conway; Kyle Carey; Khoa Tran; Adam Visser; Shaune Gifford; Mia McLanders; Dana Edelson; Matthew Churpek Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: David Wong; Timothy Bonnici; Julia Knight; Lauren Morgan; Paul Coombes; Peter Watkinson Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 2.796