Identification of Design Requirements for a Software Application for Use by Clinicians That Collects Acute Stroke Treatment Data During Clinical Workflow: Pilot Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Clinical registries are critical for monitoring processes of care in diseases and driving quality improvements. However, many smaller hospitals lack the required resources to collect the necessary data to contribute to registries. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to design and evaluate a data collection tool for acute stroke treatment that streamlines the collection of process data and provides tools to aid clinician users while not interfering with clinical workflow. The evaluation will identify key design requirements that facilitate prospective data collection and add value for clinicians. METHODS: We developed a prototype tool for testing using Figma Pro for use on an iPad. Clinicians were recruited through convenience sampling to test the prototype's use in a small-scale simulated clinical field experiment, during which participant were asked to think aloud and then complete a series of tasks to mimic a mock stroke treatment while inputting the required data into the prototype. Follow-up semistructured interviews were conducted to gain feedback on how the prototype integrated into the workflow and on the aspects of the prototype they felt helped and hindered their use of it. Qualitative data analysis combined review of the experiment recordings to identify the most frequent errors made during the scenario and deductive thematic analysis from the follow-up interviews to determine user needs for the following prototype iteration. The insights from the feedback identified design requirements that were implemented in the iterated design and documented to provide a reference for future product designers. RESULTS: Three participants were recruited from 2 hospitals between April 18 and June 6, 2024, for the simulated field experiment. The scenario took 10-12 minutes, with 1.2-3.7 minutes spent using the prototype, depending on whether optional features such as the NIHSS (National Institute of Health Stroke Scale) calculator were used. The simple and condensed layout and features such as NIHSS calculators, benchmark metric timers, and the final pop-up summary received the most positive feedback from each participant. Issues identified included small target sizes causing higher error rates, lack of color in important features reducing their visibility, and grouping of mandatory and optional information field layouts leading to a disjointed flow. The key design requirements include prioritizing simple dynamic layouts, sufficient target sizes to prevent errors, useful features with clear visual cues, and prompt data feedback to facilitate seamless integration. CONCLUSIONS: A prospective data collection tool for clinicians to use during stroke treatment can add value for clinicians and, with further testing, can be integrated into workflow. The design requirements identified through this study can provide a basis for streamlining the collection of accurate data while increasing the value of the tool for users and should be considered by future product designers to add value to their software and improve user experience.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,030 | 0,094 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».