21 research outputs found
Monitoring sound levels in the intensive care unit: A mixed-methods system development project to optimize design features for a new electronic interface in the healthcare environment.
BACKGROUND: Intensive care units (ICU) are busy round the clock and it is difficult to maintain low sound levels that support patient rest. To help ICU staff manage activities we developed a visual display that monitors and reports sound levels in real-time. This facilitates immediate feedback, encouraging proactive behavior change to limit disturbances. METHODS: Following the principles of user-centered design practices we created our 'user persona' to understand the needs and goals of potential users of the system. We then conducted iterative user testing with current members of the ICU team, primarily using the 'think aloud' method to refine the design and functionality of our novel system. Ethnography evaluated team use of the display. RESULTS: The final design was simple, clear, and efficient, and both functional and aesthetically pleasing for the key user demographic. We identified challenges in the implementation and adoption process that were separate from the 'usability' of the system itself. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding the design process within the core user demographic ensured the final product delivered relevant information for key users, and that this information was intuitive to interpret. Initiating sustainable change is not straightforward. It requires recognition of cultural practices within teams, departments, professions, organizations, and strategies to maximize engagement
Design and validation of a new Healthcare Systems Usability Scale (HSUS) for clinical decision support systems: a mixed-methods approach
Objective To develop and validate a questionnaire to assess the usability of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) and to assist in the early identification of usability issues that may impact patient safety and quality of care.
Design Mixed research methods were used to develop and validate the questionnaire. The qualitative study involved scale item development, content and face validity. Pilot testing established construct validity using factor analysis and facilitated estimates for reliability and internal consistency using the Cronbachâs alpha coefficient.
Setting Two hospitals within a single National Health Service Trust.
Participants We recruited a panel of 7 experts in usability and questionnaire writing for health purposes to test content validity; 10 participants to assess face validity and 78 participants for the pilot testing. To be eligible for this last phase, participants needed to be health professionals with at least 3âmonths experience using the local hospital electronic patient record system.
Results Feedback from the face and content validity phases contributed to the development and improvement of scale items. The final Healthcare Systems Usability Scale (HSUS) proved quick to complete, easy to understand and was mostly worded by potential users. Exploratory analysis revealed four factors related to patient safety, task execution, alerts or recommendations accuracy, the effects of the system on workflow and ease of system use. These separate into four subscales: patient safety and decision effectiveness (seven items), workflow integration (six items), work effectiveness (five items) and user control (four items). These factors affect the quality of care and clinicianâs ability to make informed and timely decisions when using CDSS. The HSUS has a very good reliability with global Cronbachâs alpha 0.914 and between 0.702 and 0.926 for the four subscales.
Conclusion The HSUS is a valid and reliable tool for usability testing of CDSS and early identification of usability issues that may cause medical adverse events
Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL):protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial
INTRODUCTION: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and is associated with longer hospital stays, increased mortality and higher healthcare costs. A number of risk factors have been identified for the development of delirium in intensive care, two of which are sleep disturbance and immobilisation. Non-pharmacological interventions for the management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium have been advocated, including sleep protocols and early mobilisation. However, there is a little published evidence evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Mobilisation in the EveNing to TreAt deLirium (MENTAL) is a two-centre, mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT). Sixty patients will be recruited from ICUs at two acute NHS trusts and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive additional evening mobilisation, delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, or standard care. The underpinning hypothesis is that the physical exertion associated with evening mobilisation will promote better sleep, subsequently having the potential to reduce delirium incidence. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a future, multicentre RCT. The primary outcome measures, which will determine feasibility, are recruitment and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Acceptability of the intervention will be evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcome measures include collecting baseline, clinical and outcome data to inform the power calculations of a future definitive trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained through the Wales Research and Ethics Committee 6 (22/WA/0106). Participants are required to provide written informed consent. We aim to disseminate the findings through international conferences, international peer-reviewed journals and social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05401461
Challenges of maintaining research protocol fidelity in a clinical care setting: A qualitative study of the experiences and views of patients and staff participating in a randomized controlled trial
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Trial research has predominantly focused on patient and staff understandings of trial concepts and/or motivations for taking part, rather than why treatment recommendations may or may not be followed during trial delivery. This study sought to understand why there was limited attainment of the glycaemic target (HbA<sub>1c </sub>â€6.5%) among patients who participated in the Treating to Target in Type 2 Diabetes Trial (4-T). The objective was to inform interpretation of trial outcomes and provide recommendations for future trial delivery.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In-depth interviews were conducted with 45 patients and 21 health professionals recruited from 11 of 58 trial centres in the UK. Patients were broadly representative of those in the main trial in terms of treatment allocation, demographics and glycaemic control. Both physicians and research nurses were interviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most patients were committed to taking insulin as recommended by 4-T staff. To avoid hypoglycaemia, patients occasionally altered or skipped insulin doses, normally in consultation with staff. Patients were usually unaware of the trial's glycaemic target. Positive staff feedback could lead patients to believe they had been 'successful' trial participants even when their HbA<sub>1c </sub>exceeded 6.5%. While some staff felt that the 4-T automated insulin dose adjustment algorithm had increased their confidence to prescribe larger insulin doses than in routine clinical practice, all described situations where they had not followed its recommendations. Staff regarded the application of a 'one size fits all' glycaemic target during the trial as contradicting routine clinical practice where they would tailor treatments to individuals. Staff also expressed concerns that 'tight' glycaemic control might impose an unacceptably high risk of hypoglycaemia, thus compromising trust and safety, especially amongst older patients. To address these concerns, staff tended to adapt the trial protocol to align it with their clinical practices and experiences.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To understand trial findings, foster attainment of endpoints, and promote protocol fidelity, it may be necessary to look beyond individual patient characteristics and experiences. Specifically, the context of trial delivery, the impact of staff involvement, and the difficulties staff may encounter in balancing competing 'clinical' and 'research' roles and responsibilities may need to be considered and addressed.</p
Comparison of user groups' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic health records: a systematic review
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Electronic health record (EHR) implementation is currently underway in Canada, as in many other countries. These ambitious projects involve many stakeholders with unique perceptions of the implementation process. EHR users have an important role to play as they must integrate the EHR system into their work environments and use it in their everyday activities. Users hold valuable, first-hand knowledge of what can limit or contribute to the success of EHR implementation projects. A comprehensive synthesis of EHR users' perceptions is key to successful future implementation. This systematic literature review was aimed to synthesize current knowledge of the barriers and facilitators influencing shared EHR implementation among its various users.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Covering a period from 1999 to 2009, a literature search was conducted on nine electronic databases. Studies were included if they reported on users' perceived barriers and facilitators to shared EHR implementation, in healthcare settings comparable to Canada. Studies in all languages with an empirical study design were included. Quality and relevance of the studies were assessed. Four EHR user groups were targeted: physicians, other health care professionals, managers, and patients/public. Content analysis was performed independently by two authors using a validated extraction grid with pre-established categorization of barriers and facilitators for each group of EHR users.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of a total of 5,695 potentially relevant publications identified, 117 full text publications were obtained after screening titles and abstracts. After review of the full articles, 60 publications, corresponding to 52 studies, met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent adoption factors common to all user groups were design and technical concerns, ease of use, interoperability, privacy and security, costs, productivity, familiarity and ability with EHR, motivation to use EHR, patient and health professional interaction, and lack of time and workload. Each user group also identified factors specific to their professional and individual priorities.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This systematic review presents innovative research on the barriers and facilitators to EHR implementation. While important similarities between user groups are highlighted, differences between them demonstrate that each user group also has a unique perspective of the implementation process that should be taken into account.</p
Measuring Sleep in the Intensive Care Unit: A Critical Appraisal of the Use of Subjective Methods
To collate and appraise the use of subjective measures to assess sleep in the intensive care unit (ICU).A systematic search and critical review of the published literature.Medline, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched using combinations of the key words "Sleep," "Critical Care," "Intensive Care," and "Sleep Disorders," and this was complemented by hand searching the most recent systematic reviews on related topics.Papers were limited to non-gray English-language studies of the adult population, published in the last 10 years.Primary outcomes were the number and categorization of quantitative studies reporting measures of sleep, the number of participants for each data collection method, and a synthesis of related material to appraise the use of survey tools commonly used for sleep measurement in the ICU.Thirty-eight papers reported quantitative empirical data collection on sleep, 17 of which used a primary method of subjective assessment of sleep by the patient or nurse. Thirteen methods of subjective sleep assessment were identified. Many of these tools lacked validity and reliability testing.Research using questionnaires to assess sleep is commonplace in light of practical barriers to polysomnography or other measures of sleep. A methodologically sound approach to tool development and testing is crucial to gather meaningful data, and this robust approach was lacking in many cases. Further research measuring sleep subjectively in ICU should use the Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, and researchers should maintain a commitment to transparency in describing methods
Correction: "I Can Remember Sort of Vivid PeopleâŠbut to Me They Were Plasticine." Delusions on the Intensive Care Unit: What Do Patients Think Is Going On?
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0153775.]
Mobilisation in the EveNing to prevent and TreAt deLirium (MENTAL): a mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trialResearch in context
Summary: Background: Delirium is common in critically ill patients and associated with longer hospital stays, increased morbidity and higher healthcare costs. Non-pharmacological interventions have been advocated for delirium management, however there is little evidence evaluating feasibility and acceptability of physical interventions administered in the evening. The aim of this study was to conduct a feasibility trial of evening mobilisation to prevent and treat delirium in patients admitted to intensive care. Methods: In this mixed-methods, randomised controlled feasibility trial we recruited participants from intensive care units at two university hospitals in the United Kingdom. Eligible participants who were able to respond to verbal stimulus (Richmond agitation and sedation scale â„3) and expected to stay in intensive care for at least 24Â h were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive usual care or usual care plus evening mobilisation. The evening mobilisation was delivered between 19:00 and 21:00, for up to seven consecutive evenings or ICU discharge, whichever was sooner. All outcome assessments were completed by a team member blinded to randomisation and group allocation. Primary objective was to assess feasibility and acceptability of evening mobilisation. Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment, consent and retention rates, and intervention fidelity. Intervention acceptability was evaluated through semi-structured interviews of participants and staff. Secondary outcomes included prevalence in incidence and duration of delirium, measured using the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05401461. Findings: Between July 16th, 2022, and October 31st, 2022, 58 eligible patients (29 usual care; 29 usual care plus evening mobilisation) were enrolled. We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of both the trial design and evening mobilisation intervention. Consent and retention rates over three months were 88% (58/66) and 90% (52/58) respectively, with qualitative analysis demonstrating good acceptability reported by both participants and staff. Secondary outcomes for the evening intervention group compared with the control group were: delirium incidence 5/26 (19%; 95% CI: 6â39%) vs 8/28 (29%; 95% CI: 13â49%) and mean delirium duration 2 days (SD 0.7) vs 4.25 days (SD 2.0). Interpretation: Results of this trial will inform the development of a definitive full-scale randomised controlled trial investigating the effects of evening mobilisation to treat delirium and improve health-related outcomes. Funding: None