Evaluations of physiological monitoring displays: A systematic review

Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 45-66

  Görges, Matthias ^a   Staggers, Nancy ^b  

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

^b UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

Author keywords

Graphical data displays; Human factors; Patient monitoring; Physiologic monitoring; Usability testing; User interface evaluations

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIOLOGY; DIAGNOSIS; GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES; HUMAN ENGINEERING; PHYSIOLOGY;

GRAPHICAL DATA DISPLAYS; USABILITY TESTING;

PATIENT MONITORING;

ACCURACY; ANESTHESIST; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; DEVICE; EXTERNAL VALIDITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LABORATORY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDLINE; METHODOLOGY; NURSE; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCINFO; PUBLICATION; RESIDENT; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; TEACHING; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ADULT; ANESTHESIOLOGY; DATA DISPLAY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; MONITORING, PHYSIOLOGIC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 39949084703     PISSN: 13871307     EISSN: 15732614     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10877-007-9106-8     Document Type: Review

References (46)

1. Sanderson P, Watson M, Russell W. Advanced patient monitoring displays: tools for continuous informing. Anesth Analg 2005; 101(1): 161-168.
2. Drews F, Westenskow D. The right picture is worth a thousand numbers: data displays in anesthesia. Hum Factors 2006; 48(1): 59-71.
3. Jenkins J. Computerized electrocardiography. Crit Rev Bioeng 1981; 6(4): 307-350.
4. Imhoff M, Kuhls S. Alarm algorithms in critical care monitoring. Anesth Analg 2006; 102(5): 1525-1537.
5. Goodstein L. Discriminative display support for process operators. In: Rasmussen J, Rouse W, eds, Human detection and diagnosis of system failures. 1st edition. Springer, 1981:433-449.
6. Syroid N, Agutter J, Drews F, Westenskow D, Albert R, Bermudez J, et al. Development and evaluation of a graphical anesthesia drug display. Anesthesiology 2002; 96(3): 565-575.
7. Drews F, Syroid N, Agutter J, Strayer D, Westenskow D. Drug delivery as control task: Improving performance in a common anesthetic task. Hum Factors 2006; 48(1): 85-94.
8. Gurushanthaiah K, Weinger M, Englund C. Visual display format affects the ability of anesthesiologists to detect acute physiologic changes. A laboratory study employing a clinical display simulator. Anesthesiology 1995; 83(6): 1184-1193.
9. Agutter J, Albert R, Syroid N, Doig A, Johnson K, Westenskow D. Arterial blood gas visualization for critical care clinicians. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Society for Technology in Anesthesiology, San Diego, CA; 2006.
10. Agutter J, Drews F, Syroid N, Westneskow D, Albert R, Strayer D, et al. Evaluation of graphic cardiovascular display in a high-fidelity simulator. Anesth Analg 2003; 97(5): 1403-1413.
11. Albert R, Agutter J, Syroid N, Johnson K, Loeb R, Westenskow D. A simulation-based evaluation of a graphic cardiovascular display. Anesth Analg 2007; 105(5): 1303-1311.
12. Blike G, Surgenor S, Whalen K, Jensen J. Specific elements of a new hemodynamics display improves the performance of anesthesiologists. J Clin Monit Comput 2000; 16(7): 485-491.
13. Blike G, Surgenor S, Whalen K. A graphical object display improves anesthesiologists' performance on a simulated diagnostic task. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15(1): 37-44.
14. Cole W, Stewart J. Human performance evaluation of a metaphor graphic display for respiratory data. Methods Inf Med 1994; 33(4): 390-396.
15. Doig A. Graphical cardiovascular display for hemodynamic monitoring. Salt Lake City: University of Utah; 2006.
16. Effken J, Kim N, Shaw R. Making the constraints visible: Testing the ecological approach to interface design. Ergonomics 1997; 40(1): 1-27.
17. Görges M, Förger K, Westenskow D. A trend based decision support system for anesthesiologists improves diagnosis speed and accuracy. Proceedings of the Annual Mountain West Biomedical Engineering Conference, Snowbird, UT; 2006.
18. 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(4): 243-258.
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 Comput 1999; 15(7-8): 469-479.
20. Law A, Freer Y, Hunter J, Logie R, McIntosh N, Quinn J. A comparison of graphical and textual presentations of time series data to support medical decision making in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Clin Monit Comput 2005; 19(3): 183-194.
21. Liu Y, Osvalder A. Usability evaluation of a GUI prototype for a ventilator machine. J Clin Monit Comput 2004; 18(5-6): 365-372.
22. Michels P, Gravenstein D, Westenskow D. An integrated graphic data display improves detection and identification of critical events during anesthesia. J Clin Monit 1997; 13(4): 249-259.
23. Ng J, Man J, Fels S, Dumont G, Ansermino J. An evaluation of a vibro-tactile display prototype for physiological monitoring. Anesth Analg 2005; 101(6): 1719-1724.
24. Wachter S, Johnson K, Albert R, Syroid N, Drews F, Westenskow D. The evaluation of a pulmonary display to detect adverse respiratory events using high resolution human simulator. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13(6): 635-642.
25. Wachter S, Markewitz B, Rose R, Westenskow D. Evaluation of a pulmonary graphical display in the medical intensive care unit: An observational study. J Biomed Inform 2005; 38(3): 239-243.
26. Wachter S, Agutter J, Syroid N, Drews F, Weinger M, Westenskow D. The employment of an iterative design process to develop a pulmonary graphical display. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10(4): 363-372.
27. Watson M, Sanderson P. Sonification supports eyes-free respiratory monitoring and task time-sharing. Hum Factors 2004; 46(3): 497-517.
28. Zhang Y, Drews F, Westenskow D, Foresti S, Agutter J, Bermudez J, et al. Effects of Integrated Graphical Displays on Situation Awareness in Anaesthesiology. Cognit Technol Work 2002; 4(2):82-90.
29. Phansalkar S, Staggers N, Weir C, eds. Development of the QUASII (QUality Assessment of Studies in Informatics Implementations) instrument. VA HSR&D National Meeting, Washington DC; 2006.
30. Cook TD, Campbell DT. Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979.
31. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2002
32. Cooper HM, Hedges LV. The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1994.
33. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane manual. 2007 [updated 8/23/ 2007; cited 9/18/2007]; Available from: http://www.cochrane.org/admin/ manual.htm.
34. Shadish WR, Fuller S. The social psychology of science. New York: Guilford Press, 1994.
35. Zhang Y, Drews F, Westenskow D, Foresti S, Agutter J, Bermudez J, et al. Effects of integrated graphical displays on situation awareness in anesthesiology. Cognit Technol Work 2004; 4(2): 82-90.
36. Ammenwerth E, Iller C, Mahler C. IT-adoption and the interaction of task, technology and individuals: A fit framework and a case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 3.
37. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh B, Gurses A, Alvarado C, Smith M, et al. Work system design for patient safety: The SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 2006;15(Suppl 1): I50-i58.
38. Despont-Gros C, Mueller H, Lovis C. Evaluating user interactions with clinical information systems: A model based on human-computer interaction models. J Biomed Inform 2005; 38(3): 244-255.
39. Staggers N. Human-computer interaction. In: Englebardt S, Nelson R, eds. Information technology in health care: An interdisciplinary approach. Harcourt Health Science Company, 2001: 321-345.
40. Daniels J, Fels S, Kushniruk A, Lim J, Ansermino J. A framework for evaluating usability of clinical monitoring technology. J Clin Monit Comput 2007; 21(5): 323-330.
41. Breslow M, Rosenfeld B, Doerfler M, Burke G, Yates G, Stone D, et al. Effect of a multiple-site intensive care unit telemedicine program on clinical and economic outcomes: An alternative paradigm for intensivist staffing. Crit Care Med 2004; 32(1): 31-38.
42. Hinkle D, Wersma W, Jurs S. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th edition. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2003: 297-330.
43. Strayer D, Drews F, Crouch D. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Hum Factors 2006; 48(2): 381-391.
44. Sanderson P. The multimodal world of medical monitoring displays. Appl Ergon 2006; 37(4): 501-512.
45. Hart S, Staveland L. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index) results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock P, Meshkati N, eds. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: North Holland Press, 1988: 139-183.
46. Rubio S, Diaz E, Martin J, Puente JM. Evaluation of subjective mental workload: A comparison of SWAT, NASA-TLX, and workload profile methods. Appl Psychol Intern Rev 2004; 53(1): 61-86.