Thermal Burns and Smoke Inhalation Injuries

In this pathophysiology paper, the reader is presented with a profile of an elderly patient who recently suffered thermal burns and smoke inhalation injuries as a result of a nursing home fire. This patient’s severe burns were classified as deep partial-thickness and full-thickness and her total body surface area (TBSA) of burns was over 15%. This paper details the different types of burns, the varying clinical manifestations of thermal burns, smoke inhalation injuries, laboratory values associated with burns, and the multitude of treatment necessary for each stage of burn management. Wound healing is described as well as potential risks and complications associated with burns. Suggestions for nursing care are also given in order to properly care for a patient similar to the one in this profile

Case studies: understanding players and the contexts in which they play. Workshop on Crossing Domains: Diverse Perspectives on Players

Over recent years, the study of games and players has become an established domain with HCI research. However, while a range of methods has been employed within this area, questions remain as to how to develop in-depth understandings of players and the contexts they play within. Drawing upon the social sciences, this paper proposes case studies as an additional methodology for player research. We discuss the approach by referring to an example of how case studies were used to investigate the relationship between gaming involvement and learning

Designing persuasive games through competition

This case study describes a game design competition that was influenced by participatory design. We consider how successful our approach was and discuss the tensions that arose during the design and evaluation process

Questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups

With fast changing technologies and related human interaction issues, there is an increased need for timely evaluation of systems with distributed users in varying contexts (Pace, 2004). This has led to the increased use of questionnaires, in-depth interviews and focus groups in commercial usability and academic research contexts. Questionnaires are usually paper based or delivered online and consist of a set of questions which all participants are asked to complete. Once the questionnaire has been created, it can be delivered to a large number of participants with little effort. However, a large number of participants also means a large amount of data needing to be coded and analysed. Interviews, on the other hand, are usually conducted on a one-to-one basis. They require a large amount of the investigator’s time during the interviews and also for transcribing and coding the data. Focus groups usually consist of one investigator and a number of participants in any one session. Although the views of any one participant cannot be probed to same degree as in an interview, the discussions that are facilitated within the groups often result in useful data in a shorter space of time than that required by one-to-one interviews. All too often, however, researchers eager to identify usability problems quickly throw together a questionnaire, interview or focus group that, when analysed, produces very little of interest. What is often lacking is an understanding of how the research method design fits with the research questions (Creswell, 2003) and how to appropriately utilise these different approaches for specific HCI needs. The methods described in this chapter can be useful when used alone but are most useful when used together with other methods. Creswell (2003) provides a comprehensive analysis of the different quantitative and qualitative methods and howthey can be mixed and matched for overall better quality research. Depending on what we are investigating, sometimes it is useful to start with a questionnaire and then, for example, follow up some specific points with an experiment, or a series of interviews, in order to fully explore some aspect of the phenomenon under study. This chapter describes how to choose between and design questionnaires, interviews and focus group studies and using two examples illustrates the advantages of combining a number of approaches when conducting HCI research

In the MOOD for Citizen Psych-Science

People make funny, frustrating and fatal errors on a daily basis. People can also create and apply strategies to avoid and mitigate error – this is called cognitive resilience. Researchers at UCLIC started the Errordiary project in 2009 as a way of raising awareness of human error research. Errordiary (www.errordiary.org) is an online public repository of the errors people make and the cognitive resilience strategies that they use. People contribute to it by using the #errordiary #rsdiary hashtags through Twitter. Over 130 people have contributed so far. The project has allowed researchers to gain a better insight into the resilience strategies that people use (Furniss et al., 2012). It has also been used as a real-life data set for teaching students about the psychology of human error (Wiseman, 2012). During August 2013 we interviewed 8 Errordiary contributors (5 female, 3 male) to find out more about their motivations for taking part. Most of our participants described their contributions as “occasional”, where Errordiary contributions varied from once a week, once a month, to once every 6 months. As one participant describes, “I go through a period of not contributing for weeks and then remembering it exists.” One reason for this is that contributions are event-driven. People cannot contribute whenever they wish - it has to be once they’ve committed an error or used a resilience strategy. Some participants described forgetting to contribute. Those that were regular twitter users were more likely to remember. As one participant describes, “I was already sharing errors on Twitter, now it’s just adding a hashtag.” The content of the error also had an impact on contributions. Sometimes participants did not tweet an error because they thought others might view their contribution as “mundane” or “not funny.” Contributions are visible to a person’s Twitter network, which means they are visible to a volunteer’s followers that may not know about the project. This makes contributing to Errordiary quite different to most other citizen science projects, where people contribute within the “safety” of being among like-minded others who share their interests. A couple of participants even described how they had set up a separate Twitter account just for the purpose of contributing to Errordiary. This highlights an important issue in using Twitter for data collection, as volunteers make a trade-off between convenience and protecting their privacy. These findings also highlight some of the ways in which a citizen psych-science project differs from a typical citizen science project. In citizen science usually volunteers collect or analyse data related to their environment (Haklay, 2013). However in Errordiary, researchers are asking volunteers to contribute their experiences of error. This means that volunteers are helping to collaborate in research, but at the same time they are the participants of the research. We suggest that this makes contributing to Errordiary more personal, and perhaps more sensitive, compared to other projects. The risks associated with sharing errors (e.g. negative perceptions from others, being viewed as incompetent) may counteract a person’s general good will to help researchers. Overall our study reveals several interesting insights concerning the spectrum of citizen science, and pros and cons in using Twitter for data collection. The Errordiary project is currently changing from being an online archive of error to a hub to engage and learn about error. This includes a ‘Discovery Zone’, allowing volunteers to explore research, media and games related to errors. It is now also possible for volunteers to login and contribute via the website – so the project is no longer restricted to Twitter users only. We plan to explore how these changes impact volunteers’ experiences in future research. References: Furniss, D., Back, J. and Blandford, A. (2012). Cognitive resilience: Can we use Twitter to make strategies more tangible? Proceedings of ECCE 2012, 96-99. Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In D. Sui et al. (Eds.) Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: VGI in Theory and Practice, pp.105-122. Springer Netherlands. Wiseman, S. (2012). Errordiary: Support for teaching human error. ‘A contextualized curriculum for HCI’ workshop at CHI 2012

Exploring unlikely errors using video games: An example in number entry research

A common and important feature of many safety critical interactive devices is number entry. In hospitals, number entry takes the form of setting drug parameters such as doses, volumes, etc. There are several ways a number entry interface can be designed - with different consequences for error and speed. Nurses and healthcare practitioners usually have to interact with different interfaces often under pressure and stress of taking care of patients with different health conditions. Error rates in practice are low, undetected error rates are even lower and obtaining the context in which the errors occur is often incredibly difficult due to poor logging systems in many medical devices and high cost of planning and conducting empirical studies. Laboratory based studies also suffer similar limitations in that, without interventions, error rates are also too low to study. This paper explores the benefits of using a gaming context to study safety critical systems. We argue that a game paradigm provides a way that overcomes many of the problems of studying low error rates in safety critical systems and specifically for number entry in medical contexts

Students with Disabilities in Dutch VET: An Exploratory Study

[Excerpt] The inclusion of persons with disabilities in general programmes of vocational training has been called for by the ILO in international labour standards over many years, including standards relating to Human Resources Development and disability-related standards. This call is taken up strongly in the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which calls on States Parties to take appropriate steps to enable persons with disabilities to have effective access to general tertiary education, vocational and life-long learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others, and to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to that effect. While many countries have expressed commitment to this vision of inclusive vocational training, progress has been limited, even in countries which have adopted policies to promote, and there has been limited analysis of the factors hindering the effective implementation of such policies. It was thus appropriate for the ILO to undertake this exploratory study, to seek to pinpoint elements of policy and practice that might need to be addressed, if these policies on inclusion are to make a difference to persons with disabilities seeking to develop their skills with a view to obtaining decent jobs. The issues identified in this study will hopefully contribute to the wider policy debate, particularly on the matter of instructor preparation for disability inclusion and on the impact of funding arrangements. It will also hopefully stimulate further research to establish whether the patterns identified here are general patterns to be found and tackled elsewhere