Alvin D Jeffery1,2, Laurie L Novak3, Betsy Kennedy2, Mary S Dietrich2, Lorraine C Mion4. 1. US Department of Veterans Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. School of Nursing, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. 4. College of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe nurses' preferences for the design of a probability-based clinical decision support (PB-CDS) tool for in-hospital clinical deterioration. METHODS: A convenience sample of bedside nurses, charge nurses, and rapid response nurses (n = 20) from adult and pediatric hospitals completed participatory design sessions with researchers in a simulation laboratory to elicit preferred design considerations for a PB-CDS tool. Following theme-based content analysis, we shared findings with user interface designers and created a low-fidelity prototype. RESULTS: Three major themes and several considerations for design elements of a PB-CDS tool surfaced from end users. Themes focused on "painting a picture" of the patient condition over time, promoting empowerment, and aligning probability information with what a nurse already believes about the patient. The most notable design element consideration included visualizing a temporal trend of the predicted probability of the outcome along with user-selected overlapping depictions of vital signs, laboratory values, and outcome-related treatments and interventions. Participants expressed that the prototype adequately operationalized requests from the design sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory design served as a valuable method in taking the first step toward developing PB-CDS tools for nurses. This information about preferred design elements of tools that support, rather than interrupt, nurses' cognitive workflows can benefit future studies in this field as well as nurses' practice. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2017. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
OBJECTIVE: To describe nurses' preferences for the design of a probability-based clinical decision support (PB-CDS) tool for in-hospital clinical deterioration. METHODS: A convenience sample of bedside nurses, charge nurses, and rapid response nurses (n = 20) from adult and pediatric hospitals completed participatory design sessions with researchers in a simulation laboratory to elicit preferred design considerations for a PB-CDS tool. Following theme-based content analysis, we shared findings with user interface designers and created a low-fidelity prototype. RESULTS: Three major themes and several considerations for design elements of a PB-CDS tool surfaced from end users. Themes focused on "painting a picture" of the patient condition over time, promoting empowerment, and aligning probability information with what a nurse already believes about the patient. The most notable design element consideration included visualizing a temporal trend of the predicted probability of the outcome along with user-selected overlapping depictions of vital signs, laboratory values, and outcome-related treatments and interventions. Participants expressed that the prototype adequately operationalized requests from the design sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Participatory design served as a valuable method in taking the first step toward developing PB-CDS tools for nurses. This information about preferred design elements of tools that support, rather than interrupt, nurses' cognitive workflows can benefit future studies in this field as well as nurses' practice. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association 2017. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the United States.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical decision-making; computer-assisted; decision support systems; models; nursing; statistical
Authors: Jane M Brokel; Tamara J Schwichtenberg; Douglas S Wakefield; Marcia M Ward; Michael G Shaw; J Michael Kramer Journal: Comput Inform Nurs Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Kelby Cleverley; Negareh Mousavi; Lyle Stronger; Kimberly Ann-Bordun; Lillian Hall; James W Tam; Alex Tischenko; Davinder S Jassal; Roger K Philipp Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2013-02-18 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: R Scott Evans; Kathryn G Kuttler; Kathy J Simpson; Stephen Howe; Peter F Crossno; Kyle V Johnson; Misty N Schreiner; James F Lloyd; William H Tettelbach; Roger K Keddington; Alden Tanner; Chelbi Wilde; Terry P Clemmer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Carlos A Alvarez; Christopher A Clark; Song Zhang; Ethan A Halm; John J Shannon; Carlos E Girod; Lauren Cooper; Ruben Amarasingham Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Jennifer Y Hong; Catherine H Ivory; Courtney B VanHouten; Christopher L Simpson; Laurie Lovett Novak Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-02-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christine W Nibbelink; Janay R Young; Jane M Carrington; Barbara B Brewer Journal: Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am Date: 2018-04-04 Impact factor: 1.326
Authors: Laurie Lovett Novak; Jonathan Wanderer; David A Owens; Daniel Fabbri; Julian Z Genkins; Thomas A Lasko Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Vaishnavi Kannan; Mujeeb A Basit; Puneet Bajaj; Angela R Carrington; Irma B Donahue; Emily L Flahaven; Richard Medford; Tsedey Melaku; Brett A Moran; Luis E Saldana; Duwayne L Willett; Josh E Youngblood; Seth M Toomay Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Emily E Haroz; Fiona Grubin; Novalene Goklish; Shardai Pioche; Mary Cwik; Allison Barlow; Emma Waugh; Jason Usher; Matthew C Lenert; Colin G Walsh Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2021-09-02