Novel Interface Designs for Patient Monitoring Applications in Critical Care Medicine: Human Factors Review.
accuracy
anesthesiology
critical care
ecological display
graphical display
interface design
performance
response time
satisfaction
situation awareness
usability
Journal
JMIR human factors
ISSN: 2292-9495
Titre abrégé: JMIR Hum Factors
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101666561
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 Jul 2020
03 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
15
06
2019
accepted:
11
03
2020
revised:
29
12
2019
entrez:
4
7
2020
pubmed:
4
7
2020
medline:
4
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The patient monitor (PM) is one of the most commonly used medical devices in hospitals worldwide. PMs are used to monitor patients' vital signs in a wide variety of patient care settings, especially in critical care settings, such as intensive care units. An interesting observation is that the design of PMs has not significantly changed over the past 2 decades, with the layout and structure of PMs more or less unchanged, with incremental changes in design being made rather than transformational changes. Thus, we believe it well-timed to review the design of novel PM interfaces, with particular reference to usability and human factors. This paper aims to review innovations in PM design proposed by researchers and explore how clinicians responded to these design changes. A literature search of relevant databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified 16 related studies. A detailed description of the interface design and an analysis of each novel PM were carried out, including a detailed analysis of the structure of the different user interfaces, to inform future PM design. The test methodologies used to evaluate the different designs are also presented. Most of the studies included in this review identified some level of improvement in the clinician's performance when using a novel display in comparison with the traditional PM. For instance, from the 16 reviewed studies, 12 studies identified an improvement in the detection and response times, and 10 studies identified an improvement in the accuracy or treatment efficiency. This indicates that novel displays have the potential to improve the clinical performance of nurses and doctors. However, the outcomes of some of these studies are weakened because of methodological deficiencies. These deficiencies are discussed in detail in this study. More careful study design is warranted to investigate the user experience and usability of future novel PMs for real time vital sign monitoring, to establish whether or not they could be used successfully in critical care. A series of recommendations on how future novel PM designs and evaluations can be enhanced are provided.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The patient monitor (PM) is one of the most commonly used medical devices in hospitals worldwide. PMs are used to monitor patients' vital signs in a wide variety of patient care settings, especially in critical care settings, such as intensive care units. An interesting observation is that the design of PMs has not significantly changed over the past 2 decades, with the layout and structure of PMs more or less unchanged, with incremental changes in design being made rather than transformational changes. Thus, we believe it well-timed to review the design of novel PM interfaces, with particular reference to usability and human factors.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This paper aims to review innovations in PM design proposed by researchers and explore how clinicians responded to these design changes.
METHODS
METHODS
A literature search of relevant databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified 16 related studies. A detailed description of the interface design and an analysis of each novel PM were carried out, including a detailed analysis of the structure of the different user interfaces, to inform future PM design. The test methodologies used to evaluate the different designs are also presented.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most of the studies included in this review identified some level of improvement in the clinician's performance when using a novel display in comparison with the traditional PM. For instance, from the 16 reviewed studies, 12 studies identified an improvement in the detection and response times, and 10 studies identified an improvement in the accuracy or treatment efficiency. This indicates that novel displays have the potential to improve the clinical performance of nurses and doctors. However, the outcomes of some of these studies are weakened because of methodological deficiencies. These deficiencies are discussed in detail in this study.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
More careful study design is warranted to investigate the user experience and usability of future novel PMs for real time vital sign monitoring, to establish whether or not they could be used successfully in critical care. A series of recommendations on how future novel PM designs and evaluations can be enhanced are provided.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32618574
pii: v7i3e15052
doi: 10.2196/15052
pmc: PMC7367533
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
e15052Informations de copyright
©Evismar Andrade, Leo Quinlan, Richard Harte, Dara Byrne, Enda Fallon, Martina Kelly, Siobhan Casey, Frank Kirrane, Paul O'Connor, Denis O'Hora, Michael Scully, John Laffey, Patrick Pladys, Alain Beuchée, Gearóid ÓLaighin. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 03.07.2020.
Références
Hum Factors. 2014 May;56(3):569-80
pubmed: 24930176
Int J Med Inform. 2013 Aug;82(8):665-75
pubmed: 23357614
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 Apr 1;175(7):686-92
pubmed: 17234905
J Adv Nurs. 2003 Dec;44(6):633-42
pubmed: 14651686
Int J Med Inform. 2008 Nov;77(11):765-77
pubmed: 18639487
Anesthesiology. 1995 Dec;83(6):1184-93
pubmed: 8533911
Artif Intell Med. 1997 Sep;11(1):33-53
pubmed: 9267590
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Jul-Aug;19(4):583-90
pubmed: 22437074
Anesth Analg. 2003 Nov;97(5):1403-13
pubmed: 14570658
Anesth Analg. 2007 Nov;105(5):1303-11, table of contents
pubmed: 17959959
Comput Inform Nurs. 2011 Dec;29(12):706-13
pubmed: 21412150
J Clin Monit Comput. 2000;16(4):243-58
pubmed: 12578071
J Clin Monit. 1997 Jul;13(4):249-59
pubmed: 9269619
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006 Nov-Dec;13(6):635-42
pubmed: 16929038
Stud Health Technol Inform. 2001;84(Pt 1):127-31
pubmed: 11604719
Hum Factors. 2006 Spring;48(1):59-71
pubmed: 16696257
Ergonomics. 1997 Jan;40(1):1-27
pubmed: 8995046
J Clin Monit Comput. 1999 Dec;15(7-8):469-79
pubmed: 12578045
Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2011 Jul-Aug;30(4):206-17
pubmed: 21654229
J Clin Monit Comput. 2009 Aug;23(4):223-32
pubmed: 19544053
J Clin Monit Comput. 2012 Dec;26(6):429-36
pubmed: 22588528
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Oct;13(5):388-94
pubmed: 15465944
J Clin Monit Comput. 1999 Jan;15(1):37-44
pubmed: 12578060