A User-Centered Approach to Evaluating Wayfinding Systems in Healthcare
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this methodology is to provide the designers of wayfinding systems in healthcare facilities a process for evaluating and optimizing a design prior to implementation. The use of this methodology can improve patient experience in hospitals by preventing the installation of confusing, incomplete, and/or frustrating wayfinding systems. BACKGROUND: Despite known wayfinding and information design principles, wayfinding continues to be a challenge in healthcare environments. One reason is that the design of wayfinding systems is rarely evaluated with end users prior to implementation. The methodology outlined in this article is an application of usability testing that involves end users navigating a space using prototyped signage and other elements of a wayfinding system to determine the effectiveness of the system and identify improvement opportunities. This methodology was developed for use in an emergency department that had outdated signage and required a new wayfinding system. CONCLUSION: This methodology provides a structured process for testing and improving the design of a hospital wayfinding system prior to implementation.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it