The employment of an iterative design process to develop a pulmonary graphical display

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 363-372

  Wachter, S Blake ^a   Agutter, Jim ^b   Syroid, Noah ^a   Drews, Frank ^b   Weinger, Matthew B ^c,d   Westenskow, Dwayne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

^c University of California   (United States)

^d VA SAN DIEGO HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; ARTICLE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LUNG FUNCTION; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; MODEL; SCORING SYSTEM;

EID: 0038648977     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M1207     Document Type: Review

References (35)

1. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (eds). Institute of Medicine. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000, p 312.
2. Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Long CD, McPeak B. Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. Anesthesiology. 1978;49:399-409.
3. Cooper JB, Newbower RS, Kitz RJ. An anlysis of major errors and equipment failures in anesthesia management: considerations for prevention and detction. Anesthesiology. 1984;60:34-43.
4. Loeb RG. A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor displays. Anesth Analg. 1993;76:337-41.
5. Allnutt MF. Human factors in accidents. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:856-64.
6. Arnstein F. Catalogue of human error. Br J Anaesth. 1997;79:645-56.
7. Whitcher C, Ream AK, Parsons D, et al. Anesthetic mishaps and the cost of monitoring: a proposed standard for monitoring equipment. J Clin Monit. 1988;4(1):5-15.
8. Endsley M. Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37:65-85.
9. Rasmussen J, Vincente KJ. Evaluation of a Rankine cycle display for nuclear power plant monitoring and diagnosis. Hum Factors. 1996;38:506-21.
10. Adams M, Tenney VJ, Pew RW. Situation awareness and the cognitive management of complex systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37:85-104.
11. Sotkes A, Wickens CD. Aviation displays. In: Human Factors in Aviation Displays. San Diego: Academic Press, 1988; pp 387-431.
12. Bennet KB, Walters B. Configural display design techniques considered at multiple levels of evaluation. Hum Factors. 2001;43:415-34.
13. Moray N. Conceptual frameworks. In: Durso FT (ed). Handbook of Applied Cognition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999;215-43.
14. Gurushanthaiah K, Weinger MB, Englund CE. Visual display format affects the ability of anesthesiologists to detect acute physiologic changes. A laboratory study employing a clinical display simulator. Anesthesiology. 1995;83:1184-93.
15. Michels P, Gravenstein D, Westenskow DR. An integrated graphic data display improves detection and identification of critical events during anesthesia. J Clin Monit. 1997;13: 249-59.
16. Cole W, Stewart JG. Metaphor graphics to support integrated decision making with respiratory data. Int J Clin Comput. 1993;10(2):91-100.
17. Cole WG, Stewart JG. Human performance evaluation of a metaphor graphic display for respiratory data. Methods Inf Med. 1994;33:390-6.
18. Blike G, Surgenor SD, Whalen K. A graphical object display improves anesthesiologists' performane on a simulated diagnostic task. J Clin Monit. 1999;15:37-44.
19. Jungk A, Thull B, Hoeft A, Rau G. Ergonomic evaluation of an ecological interface and a profilogram display for hemodynamic monitoring. J Clin Monit. 1999;15:469-79.
20. Jungk A, Thull B, Hoeft A, Rau G. Evaluation of two new ecological interface approaches for the anesthesia workplace. J Clin Monit Comput. 2000;16:243-58.
21. Weinger MB, Herndon OW, Zornow MH, Paulus MP, Gaba DM, Dallen LT. An objective methodology for task analysis and workload assessment in anesthesia providers. Anesthesiology. 1994;80:77-92.
22. Cook RI, Potter SS, Woods DD, McDonald JS. Evaluating the human engineering of microprocessor-controlled operating room devices. J Clin Monit. 1991;7:217-26.
23. Patel VL, Kushniruk AW. Interface design for health care environments: the role of cognitive science. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:29-37.
24. Gardner RM, Prakash O. Challenges and opportunities for computerizing the anesthesia record. J Clin Anesth. 1994;6: 333-41.
25. Nazir T, Beatty PC. Anaesthetists' attitudes to monitoring instrument design options. Br J Anaesth. 2000;85:781-4.
26. McPhee K. Design Theory and Software Design. Edmonton, Alberta: The University of Alberta, 1996, p 76.
27. Snodgrass A, Coyne R. Models, metpahors and the hermeneuticls of designing. Design Issues. 1992;9(1):56-74.
28. Agutter J, Syroid ND, Drews FA, Westenskow DR, Bermudez JC, Strayer DL. Graphic Data Display for Cardiovascular System. In: IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, San Diego, 2001.
29. Syroid ND, Agutter J, Drews FA, et al. Development and evaluation of a graphical anesthesia drug display. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:565-75.
30. Blike G. The boundary information in a gray-scale object display and a color enhanced variant, improve problem recognition compared to an alpha-numeric display. Anesthesiology [abstract]. 1997;87 Sep(3A):A458.
31. Blike G. The emergent shape features in a gray-scale graphical display improve pattern recognition compared to an alpha-numeric display [abstract]. Anesthesiology. 1997;87 Sep(3A): A394.
32. Gaba D, Fish K, Howard S. Crisis management in Anesthesia. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1994.
33. Virizi R. Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: how many subjects is enough? Hum Factors. 1992;34:457-68.
34. Nielsen J, Landauer TK. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. Proceedings of ACM INTERCHI'93 Conference. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Apr 1993, pp 206-13.
35. Grippi MA. Pulmonary Pathophysiology. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven, 1995, 337.