Search

BackgroundContinuous monitoring of the vital signs of critical care patients is an essential component of critical care medicine. For this task, clinicians use a patient monitor (PM), which conveys patient vital sign data through a screen and an auditory alarm system. Some limitations with PMs have been identified in the literature, such as the need for visual contact with the PM screen, which could result in reduced focus on the patient in specific scenarios, and the amount of noise generated by the PM alarm system. With the advancement of material science and electronic technology, wearable devices have emerged as a potential solution for these problems. This review presents the findings of several studies that focused on the usability and human factors of wearable devices designed for use in critical care patient monitoring. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to review the current state of the art in wearable devices intended for use by clinicians to monitor vital signs of critical care patients in hospital settings, with a focus on the usability and human factors of the devices. MethodsA comprehensive literature search of relevant databases was conducted, and 20 studies were identified and critically reviewed by the authors. ResultsWe identified 3 types of wearable devices: tactile, head-mounted, and smartwatch displays. In most cases, these devices were intended for use by anesthesiologists, but nurses and surgeons were also identified as potentially important users of wearable technology in critical care medicine. Although the studies investigating tactile displays revealed their potential to improve clinical monitoring, usability problems related to comfort need to be overcome before they can be considered suitable for use in clinical practice. Only a few studies investigated the usability and human factors of tactile displays by conducting user testing involving critical care professionals. The studies of head-mounted displays (HMDs) revealed that these devices could be useful in critical care medicine, particularly from an ergonomics point of view. By reducing the amount of time the user spends averting their gaze from the patient to a separate screen, HMDs enable clinicians to improve their patient focus and reduce the potential of repetitive strain injury. ConclusionsResearchers and designers of new wearable devices for use in critical care medicine should strive to achieve not only enhanced performance but also enhanced user experience for their users, especially in terms of comfort and ease of use. These aspects of wearable displays must be extensively tested with the intended end users in a setting that properly reflects the intended context of use before their adoption can be considered in clinical settings.

BackgroundThe patient monitor (PM) is one of the most commonly used medical devices in hospitals worldwide. PMs are used to monitor patients’ vital signs in a wide variety of patient care settings, especially in critical care settings, such as intensive care units. An interesting observation is that the design of PMs has not significantly changed over the past 2 decades, with the layout and structure of PMs more or less unchanged, with incremental changes in design being made rather than transformational changes. Thus, we believe it well-timed to review the design of novel PM interfaces, with particular reference to usability and human factors. ObjectiveThis paper aims to review innovations in PM design proposed by researchers and explore how clinicians responded to these design changes. MethodsA literature search of relevant databases, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, identified 16 related studies. A detailed description of the interface design and an analysis of each novel PM were carried out, including a detailed analysis of the structure of the different user interfaces, to inform future PM design. The test methodologies used to evaluate the different designs are also presented. ResultsMost of the studies included in this review identified some level of improvement in the clinician’s performance when using a novel display in comparison with the traditional PM. For instance, from the 16 reviewed studies, 12 studies identified an improvement in the detection and response times, and 10 studies identified an improvement in the accuracy or treatment efficiency. This indicates that novel displays have the potential to improve the clinical performance of nurses and doctors. However, the outcomes of some of these studies are weakened because of methodological deficiencies. These deficiencies are discussed in detail in this study. ConclusionsMore careful study design is warranted to investigate the user experience and usability of future novel PMs for real time vital sign monitoring, to establish whether or not they could be used successfully in critical care. A series of recommendations on how future novel PM designs and evaluations can be enhanced are provided.

Background: Upon entering the healthcare system, junior doctors may lack the skills required to care for patients, and feel unprepared for their role, with considerable variation in the level of proficiency in the performance of particular clinical procedures. Objective: To compare the performance and proficiency (self-report and observed) of the performance of nine basic clinical procedures. Methods: Seventeen interns were observed performing nine clinical procedures in a simulated setting in June 2021 (Assessment 1) and January 2022 (Assessment 2). The observers identified whether each step in the procedure was performed correctly, and provided an overall assessment of proficiency. The participants also rated their own level proficiency. Results: At Assessment 1 the number of steps performed correctly ranged from a mean of 41.9–83.5%. At Assessment 2 the number of steps performed correctly ranged from a mean of 41.9–97.8%. The most common median proficiency rating for Assessment 1 was 'close supervision', and was 'indirect supervision' at Assessment 2. There was a significant and large effect size in the improvement in performance from Assessment 1 to Assessment 2. Low correlations were found between observer and self-reported proficiency in performance of the procedures. Conclusions: The large improvement in performance across the two assessments is encouraging. However, there is a need to address the variability in performance on graduation from medical school, and to ensure that any assessment of proficiency is not only reliant on self-report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]