PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(03): 583-599
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1787755
Research Article

Designing the User Interface of a Nitroglycerin Dose Titration Decision Support System: User-Centered Design Study

Navpreet Kamboj 
1   Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
Kelly Metcalfe 
1   Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
2   Women's College Hospital Research and Innovation Institute, Toronto, Canada
,
Charlene H. Chu 
1   Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
3   KITE-Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada
,
Aaron Conway 
4   School of Nursing, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Nurses adjust intravenous nitroglycerin infusions to provide acute relief for angina by manually increasing or decreasing the dosage. However, titration can pose challenges, as excessively high doses can lead to hypotension, and low doses may result in inadequate pain relief. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that predict changes in blood pressure for nitroglycerin dose adjustments may assist nurses with titration.

Objective This study aimed to design a user interface for a CDSS for nitroglycerin dose titration (Nitroglycerin Dose Titration Decision Support System [nitro DSS]).

Methods A user-centered design (UCD) approach, consisting of an initial qualitative study with semistructured interviews to identify design specifications for prototype development, was used. This was followed by three iterative rounds of usability testing. Nurses with experience titrating nitroglycerin infusions in coronary care units participated.

Results A total of 20 nurses participated, including 7 during the qualitative study and 15 during usability testing (2 nurses participated in both phases). Analysis of the qualitative data revealed four themes for the interface design to be (1) clear and consistent, (2) vigilant, (3) interoperable, and (4) reliable. The major elements of the final prototype included a feature for viewing the predicted and actual blood pressure over time to determine the reliability of the predictions, a drop-down option to report patient side effects, a feature to report reasons for not accepting the prediction, and a visual alert indicating any systolic blood pressure predictions below 90 mm Hg. Nurses' ratings on the questionnaires indicated excellent usability and acceptability of the final nitro DSS prototype.

Conclusion This study successfully applied a UCD approach to collaborate with nurses in developing a user interface for the nitro DSS that supports the clinical decision-making of nurses titrating nitroglycerin.

Keywords

medication management - clinical decision support systems - graphical user interface - interfaces and usability - requirements analysis and design

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed by the hospital and educational institute of the corresponding author.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 14. Dezember 2023

Angenommen: 14. Mai 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. Juli 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Tarkin JM, Kaski JC. Pharmacological treatment of chronic stable angina pectoris. Clin Med (Lond) 2013; 13 (01) 63-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cheng DCH, Martin J, David T. Evidence-Based Practice in Perioperative Cardiac Anesthesia and Surgery. Springer; 2021
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Fadale KL, Tucker D, Dungan J, Sabol V. Improving nurses' vasopressor titration skills and self-efficacy via simulation-based learning. Clin Simul Nurs 2014; 10 (06) e291-e299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Arellano D. Vasopressor Titration in Medical Intensive Care Patients with Septic Shock: A Descriptive Study. 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Kamboj N, Chang K, Metcalfe K, Chu CH, Conway A. Accuracy and precision of continuous non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring in critical care: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2021; 67: 103091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Osheroff JA, Teich JM, Levick D. et al. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: An Implementer's Guide. CRC Press; 2012
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med 2020; 3 (01) 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Vaghefi I, Tulu B. The continued use of mobile health apps: insights from a longitudinal study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2019; 7 (08) e12983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Goh WP, Tao X, Zhang J, Yong J. Feature-based learning in drug prescription system for medical clinics. Neural Process Lett 2020; 52 (03) 1703-1721
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tang T, Lim ME, Mansfield E, McLachlan A, Quan SD. Clinician user involvement in the real world: designing an electronic tool to improve interprofessional communication and collaboration in a hospital setting. Int J Med Inform 2018; 110: 90-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nguyen Ngoc H, Lasa G, Iriarte I. Human-centred design in industry 4.0: case study review and opportunities for future research. J Intell Manuf 2022; 33 (01) 35-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Barnum CM. Usability Testing Essentials: Ready, Set…Test! Morgan Kaufmann;. 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Riihiaho S. Usability testing. Wiley Handb Hum Comput Interact. 2018; 1: 255-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Witteman HO, Vaisson G, Provencher T. et al. An 11-item measure of user-and human-centered design for personal health tools (UCD-11): development and validation. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (03) e15032
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tsimicalis A, Stinson J, Thorstad K. et al. The design, development, and usability testing of an ehealth program for youths with osteogenesis imperfecta: protocol for a 2-Phase User-Centered Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Res Protoc 2023; 12 (01) e47524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chu CH, Biss RK, Cooper L, Quan AML, Matulis H. Exergaming platform for older adults residing in long-term care homes: user-centered design, development, and usability study. JMIR Serious Games 2021; 9 (01) e22370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Seto E, Leonard KJ, Cafazzo JA, Barnsley J, Masino C, Ross HJ. Mobile phone-based telemonitoring for heart failure management: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (01) e31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Cafazzo JA, Casselman M, Hamming N, Katzman DK, Palmert MR. Design of an mHealth app for the self-management of adolescent type 1 diabetes: a pilot study. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14 (03) e70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Johnson WR, Artino Jr AR, Durning SJ. Using the think aloud protocol in health professions education: an interview method for exploring thought processes: AMEE Guide No. 151. Med Teach 2023; 45 (09) 937-948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Hooper PL. Expert Titration of Multiple Vasoactive Drugs in Post-Cardiac Surgical Patients: An Interpretive Study of Clinical Judgement and Perceptual Acuity. San Francisco:: University of California;; 1995
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Miller K, Mosby D, Capan M. et al. Interface, information, interaction: a narrative review of design and functional requirements for clinical decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (05) 585-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Faria P. . figma: Web Client/Wrapper to the Figma API. Published online 2023. Accessed May 23, 2024 at: https://github.com/pedropark99/figma , Https://pedropark99.github.io/figma/
    PubMed
  • 23 Brooke J. Sus: a “quick and dirty'usability. Usability Eval Ind. 1996; 189 (03) 189-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Brooke J. SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud 2013; 8 (02) 29-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 International Organization for Standardization. ISO 9241–210:2019 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems;. 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kumah-Crystal Y, Lehmann CU, Albert D. et al. Vanderbilt EHR Voice Assistant (VEVA) supports clinicians. . Appl Clin Inform 2023; 15: 199-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Campos TNC, Nogueira JAM, Silva TLS. et al. Development and validation of an application for prevention of sleep disorders in puerperal women. Sleep Sci 2022; 16: 1-70
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hettinger KN, Snyder ME, Adeoye-Olatunde OA, Russ-Jara AL. Usability evaluation of a community pharmacy health information exchange interface prototype. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (04) 811-821
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Brehaut JC, Graham ID, Wood TJ. et al. Measuring acceptability of clinical decision rules: validation of the Ottawa acceptability of decision rules instrument (OADRI) in four countries. Med Decis Making 2010; 30 (03) 398-408
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 de Vos-Kerkhof E, Graham ID, Korfage IJ. et al. Measuring acceptability of clinical decision rules using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI): a pediatric emergency care study. Int Arch Nurs Health Care 2016; 2: 44
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jankowski N, Schönijahn L, Salchow C, Ivanova E, Wahl M. User-centred design as an important component of technological development: improving stroke rehabilitation systems with user acceptance and satisfaction surveys. Curr Dir Biomed Eng 2017; 3 (01) 69-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15 (09) 1277-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mihas P. Qualitative data analysis. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education;. 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 34 QSR International. Nvivo (Version 12.1) qualitative data analysis software. Published online 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Sauro J, Lewis JR. Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud 2009; 4 (03) 114-123
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Vlachogianni P, Tselios N. Perceived usability evaluation of educational technology using the System Usability Scale (SUS): a systematic review. J Res Technol Educ 2022; 54 (03) 392-409
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Faller N, Stalder O, Limacher A. et al. Frequency of use and acceptability of clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism among Swiss general internal medicine residents. Thromb Res 2017; 160: 9-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Trillium Health Partners. Nitroglycerin- Adult Parenteral Therapy Drug Information Order set. Published online 2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Marcos M, Maldonado JA, Martínez-Salvador B, Boscá D, Robles M. Interoperability of clinical decision-support systems and electronic health records using archetypes: a case study in clinical trial eligibility. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (04) 676-689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Yoo J, Lee J, Min JY. et al. Development of an interoperable and easily transferable clinical decision support system deployment platform: system design and development study. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24 (07) e37928
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ash JS, Sittig DF, McMullen CK. et al. Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2015; 15 (01) 35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Cooper AL, Brown JA, Eccles SP, Cooper N, Albrecht MA. Is nursing and midwifery clinical documentation a burden? An empirical study of perception versus reality. J Clin Nurs 2021; 30 (11-12): 1645-1652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Tung T-H, DeLaurentis P, Yih Y. Uncovering discrepancies in IV vancomycin infusion records between pump logs and EHR documentation. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (04) 891-900
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Middleton B, Sittig DF, Wright A. Clinical decision support: a 25 year retrospective and a 25 year vision. Yearb Med Inform 2016; 25 (Suppl. 01) S103-S116
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Dunn Lopez K, Gephart SM, Raszewski R, Sousa V, Shehorn LE, Abraham J. Integrative review of clinical decision support for registered nurses in acute care settings. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 441-450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Manage Inf Syst Q 1989; 13: 319-340
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Sagnier C, Loup-Escande E, Lourdeaux D, Thouvenin I, Valléry G. User acceptance of virtual reality: an extended technology acceptance model. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2020; 36 (11) 993-1007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Ronquillo CE, Peltonen LM, Pruinelli L. et al. Artificial intelligence in nursing: Priorities and opportunities from an international invitational think-tank of the Nursing and Artificial Intelligence Leadership Collaborative. J Adv Nurs 2021; 77 (09) 3707-3717
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Pal D, Vanijja V. Perceived usability evaluation of Microsoft Teams as an online learning platform during COVID-19 using system usability scale and technology acceptance model in India. Child Youth Serv Rev 2020; 119: 105535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Silva P. Davis' technology acceptance model (TAM)(1989). Information Seeking Behavior and Technology Adoption: Theories and Trends. IGI Global; 2015; 205-219
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Khong PCB, Hoi SY, Holroyd E, Wang W. Nurses' clinical decision making on adopting a wound clinical decision support system. Comput Inform Nurs 2015; 33 (07) 295-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Dhopeshwarkar RV, Freij M, Callaham M. et al. Lessons learned from a national initiative promoting publicly available standards-based clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (03) 566-574
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Schwartz JM, George M, Rossetti SC. et al. Factors influencing clinician trust in predictive clinical decision support systems for in-hospital deterioration: qualitative descriptive study. JMIR Human Factors 2022; 9 (02) e33960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Kwong JCC, Erdman L, Khondker A. et al. The silent trial - the bridge between bench-to-bedside clinical AI applications. Front Digit Health 2022; 4: 929508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar