» Articles » PMID: 31033445

A Digital Cognitive Aid for Anesthesia to Support Intraoperative Crisis Management: Results of the User-Centered Design Process

Overview
Date 2019 Apr 30
PMID 31033445
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Stressful situations during intraoperative emergencies have negative impact on human cognitive functions. Consequently, task performance may decrease and patient safety may be compromised. Cognitive aids can counteract these effects and support anesthesiologists in their crisis management. The Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists set up a project to develop a comprehensive set of digital cognitive aids for intraoperative emergencies. A parallel development for several software platforms and stationary and mobile devices will accommodate the inhomogeneity of the information technology infrastructure within German anesthesia departments.

Objective: This paper aimed to provide a detailed overview of how the task of developing a digital cognitive aid for intraoperative crisis management in anesthesia was addressed that meets user requirements and is highly user-friendly.

Methods: A user-centered design (UCD) process was conducted to identify, specify, and supplement the requirements for a digital cognitive aid. The study covered 4 aspects: analysis of the context of use, specification of user requirements, development of design solutions, and evaluation of design solutions. Three prototypes were developed and evaluated by end users of the application. Following each evaluation, the new requirements were prioritized and used for redesign. For the first and third prototype, the System Usability Scale (SUS) score was determined. The second prototype was evaluated with an extensive Web-based questionnaire. The evaluation of the third prototype included a think-aloud protocol.

Results: The chosen methods enabled a comprehensive collection of requirements and helped to improve the design of the application. The first prototype achieved an average SUS score of 74 (SD 12), indicating good usability. The second prototype included the following main revisions: 2-column layout, initial selection of patient type (infant, adult, or parturient), 4 offered search options, and the option to check off completed action steps. Its evaluation identified the following major revision points: add quick selection for resuscitation checklists, design the top bar and tabs slightly larger, and add more pictograms to the text. The third prototype achieved an average SUS score of 77 (SD 15). The evaluation of the think-aloud protocol revealed a good intuitiveness of the application and identified a missing home button as the main issue.

Conclusions: Anesthesiology-as an acute medical field-is particularly characterized by its high demands on decision making and action in dynamic, or time-critical situations. The integration of usability aspects is essential for everyday and emergency suitability. The UCD process allowed us to develop a prototypical digital cognitive aid, exhibiting high usability and user satisfaction in the demanding environment of anesthesiological emergencies. Both aspects are essential to increase the acceptance of the application in later stages. The study approach, combining different methods for determining user requirements, may be useful for other implementation projects in a highly demanding environment.

Citing Articles

[Treatment quality with and without an electronic cognitive aid for emergencies in anaesthesia (eGENA) : The DANGER pilot study part 2 in randomized controlled in-situ emergency simulations].

Ruckert F, Truxa V, Dussmann P, Schmidt T, Seyfried T Anaesthesiologie. 2025; 74(1):15-23.

PMID: 39794633 DOI: 10.1007/s00101-024-01493-3.


Design Approaches for Developing Quality Checklists in Healthcare Organizations: A Scoping Review.

Kwong E, Cole A, Sippo D, Yu F, Adapa K, Shea C medRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 39398986 PMC: 11469382. DOI: 10.1101/2024.09.27.24314468.


A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Two Different Cognitive Aid Bundle Designs on Adherence to Best Clinical Practice in Simulated Perioperative Emergencies.

van Haperen M, Kemper T, Koers L, van Wandelen S, Waller E, de Klerk E J Clin Med. 2024; 13(17).

PMID: 39274467 PMC: 11395788. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13175253.


Implementation of a software-based decision support tool for guideline-appropriate preoperative evaluation: a prospective agreement study.

Kagerbauer S, Wissler J, Andonov D, Ulm B, Schneider G, Podtschaske A Br J Anaesth. 2024; 133(3):519-529.

PMID: 38971713 PMC: 11347788. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2024.06.001.


Methods used to evaluate usability of mobile clinical decision support systems for healthcare emergencies: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis.

Wohlgemut J, Pisirir E, Kyrimi E, Stoner R, Marsh W, Perkins Z JAMIA Open. 2023; 6(3):ooad051.

PMID: 37449057 PMC: 10336299. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad051.


References
1.
Reason J . Safety in the operating theatre - Part 2: human error and organisational failure. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005; 14(1):56-60. PMC: 1743973. View

2.
Hallbeck M, Koneczny S, Buchel D, Matern U . Ergonomic usability testing of operating room devices. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2008; 132:147-52. View

3.
Bartelmes M, Neumann U, Luhmann D, Schonermark M, Hagen A . Methods for assessment of innovative medical technologies during early stages of development. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2011; 5:Doc15. PMC: 3011288. DOI: 10.3205/hta000077. View

4.
Burden A, Carr Z, Staman G, Littman J, Torjman M . Does every code need a "reader?" improvement of rare event management with a cognitive aid "reader" during a simulated emergency: a pilot study. Simul Healthc. 2011; 7(1):1-9. DOI: 10.1097/SIH.0b013e31822c0f20. View

5.
Marshall S . The use of cognitive aids during emergencies in anesthesia: a review of the literature. Anesth Analg. 2013; 117(5):1162-71. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31829c397b. View