Engaging clinicians early during the development of a graphical user display of an intelligent alerting system at the bedside
Open accessAbstract
Background Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly used to support bedside clinical decisions, but information must be presented in usable ways within workflow. Graphical User Interfaces (GUI) are front-facing presentations for communicating AI outputs, but clinicians are not routinely invited to participate in their design, hindering AI solution potential. Purpose To inform early user-engaged design of a GUI prototype aimed at predicting future Cardiorespiratory Insufficiency (CRI) by exploring clinician methods for identifying at-risk patients, previous experience with implementing new technologies into clinical workflow, and user perspectives on GUI screen changes. Methods We conducted a qualitative focus group study to elicit iterative design feedback from clinical end-users on an early GUI prototype display. Five online focus group sessions were held, each moderated by an expert focus group methodologist. Iterative design changes were made sequentially, and the updated GUI display was presented to the next group of participants. Results 23 clinicians were recruited (14 nurses, 4 nurse practitioners, 5 physicians; median participant age ∼35 years; 60% female; median clinical experience 8 years). Five themes emerged from thematic content analysis: trend evolution, context (risk evolution relative to vital signs and interventions), evaluation/interpretation/explanation (sub theme: continuity of evaluation), clinician intuition, and clinical operations. Based on these themes, GUI display changes were made. For example, color and scale adjustments, integration of clinical information, and threshold personalization. Conclusions Early user-engaged design was useful in adjusting GUI presentation of AI output. Next steps involve clinical testing and further design modification of the AI output to optimally facilitate clinician surveillance and decisions. Clinicians should be involved early and often in clinical decision support design to optimize efficacy of AI tools.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Similar to others, we found that extraction of directly interpretable patient data and actionable needs was a high priority.
“Similar to others,73–75 we found that extraction of directly interpretable patient data and actionable needs was a high priority (Subtheme 4.d).”
From Potential uses of AI for perioperative nursing handoffs: a qualitative study (2023) · cites this paper as [75]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 31
- Authors
- Helman, S., Terry, M. A., Pellathy, T., Williams, A., Dubrawski, A., Clermont, G., Pinsky, M. R., Al-Zaiti, S., & Hravnak, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (US)
- Carnegie Mellon University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Helman, Stephanie
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2022-03
- Volume
- 159
- Pages
- 104643
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9040820
- OpenAlex
- W3212476026
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1F31NR019725-01A1, R01NR 013912, T32NR008857)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Keywords
- clinical decision support, artificial intelligence, graphical user interface design, user engagement, clinical workflow
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Artificial Intelligence, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Physicians, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Workflow
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review