Cited by 46Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Participatory design of probability-based decision support tools for in-hospital nurses

Open access
Jeffery, Alvin D, Novak, Laurie L, Kennedy, Betsy, Dietrich, Mary S, Mion, Lorraine C·2017·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

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.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocx060

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Medical experts may be unable to understand explained risk factors and estimated probabilistic explanations.

    “Also, there is a possibility that the medical experts may be unable to understand the explained risk factors and estimated probabilistic explanations [20].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Amarasingham R, Patzer RE, Huesch M, Nguyen NQ, Xie B. Implement- ing electronic health care predictive analytics: considerations and chal- lenges. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(7):1148-54.
  2. Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of infor- mation technology: Toward a unified view. Manag Inform Sys Quart. 2003;27(3):425-78.
  3. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative Daya Analysis: A Meth- ods Sourcebook. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2014.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jeffery, A. D., Novak, L. L., Kennedy, B., Dietrich, M. S., & Mion, L. C.
Affiliations
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Jeffery, Alvin D
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2017-06-19
Volume
24
Issue
6
Pages
1102-1110
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W2684733610
Cited by
46
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5
FWCI
7.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • AMIA
Funders
  • Vanderbilt University
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000445)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
clinical deterioration, participatory design, nurse preferences, rapid response, temporal data visualization, nurse empowerment, low-fidelity prototypes, bedside nurses, children's hospitals
MeSH terms
Clinical Decision-Making, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Probability, User-Computer Interface, Models, Statistical, Nursing Methodology Research, Patient Simulation, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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