Applying a Human-Centered Design to Develop a Patient Prioritization Tool for a Pediatric Emergency Department: Detailed Case Study of First Iterations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overcrowding in the emergency departments has become an increasingly significant problem. Patient triage strategies are acknowledged to help clinicians manage patient flow and reduce patients' waiting time. However, electronic patient triage systems are not developed so that they comply with clinicians' workflow. OBJECTIVE: This case study presents the development of a patient prioritization tool (PPT) and of the related patient prioritization algorithm (PPA) for a pediatric emergency department (PED), relying on a human-centered design process. METHODS: We followed a human-centered design process, wherein we (1) performed a work system analysis through observations and interviews in an academic hospital's PED; (2) deduced design specifications; (3) designed a mock PPT and the related PPA; and (4) performed user testing to assess the intuitiveness of the icons, the effectiveness in communicating patient priority, the fit between the prioritization model implemented and the participants' prioritization rules, and the participants' satisfaction. RESULTS: The workflow analysis identified that the PPT interface should meet the needs of physicians and nurses, represent the stages of patient care, and contain patient information such as waiting time, test status (eg, prescribed, in progress), age, and a suggestion for prioritization. The mock-up developed gives the status of patients progressing through the PED; a strip represents the patient and the patient's characteristics, including a delay indicator that compares the patient's waiting time to the average waiting time of patients with a comparable reason for emergency. User tests revealed issues with icon intuitiveness, information gaps, and possible refinements in the prioritization algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the user tests have led to modifications to improve the usability and usefulness of the PPT and its PPA. We discuss the value of integrating human factors into the design process for a PPT for PED. The PPT/PPA has been developed and installed in Lille University Hospital's PED. Studies are carried out to evaluate the use and impact of this tool on clinicians' situation awareness and prioritization-related cognitive load, prioritization of patients, waiting time, and patients' experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".