ABSTRACT
Cognitive task analysis (CTA) methods are traditionally used to conduct small-sample, in-depth studies. In this case study, CTA methods were adapted for a large multi-site study in which 102 anesthesiologists worked through four different high-fidelity simulated high-consequence incidents. Cognitive interviews were used to elicit decision processes following each simulated incident. In this paper, we highlight three practical challenges that arose: (1) standardizing the interview techniques for use across a large, distributed team of diverse backgrounds; (2) developing effective training; and (3) developing a strategy to analyze the resulting large amount of qualitative data. We reflect on how we addressed these challenges by increasing standardization, developing focused training, overcoming social norms that hindered interview effectiveness, and conducting a staged analysis. We share findings from a preliminary analysis that provides early validation of the strategy employed. Analysis of a subset of 64 interview transcripts using a decompositional analysis approach suggests that interviewers successfully elicited descriptions of decision processes that varied due to the different challenges presented by the four simulated incidents. A holistic analysis of the same 64 transcripts revealed individual differences in how anesthesiologists interpreted and managed the same case.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: We examined the influence of 4 different risk information formats on inpatient nurses' preferences and decisions with an acute clinical deterioration decision-support system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a comparative usability evaluation in which participants provided responses to multiple user interface options in a simulated setting. We collected qualitative data using think aloud methods. We collected quantitative data by asking participants which action they would perform after each time point in 3 different patient scenarios. RESULTS: More participants (n = 6) preferred the probability format over relative risk ratios (n = 2), absolute differences (n = 2), and number of persons out of 100 (n = 0). Participants liked average lines, having a trend graph to supplement the risk estimate, and consistent colors between trend graphs and possible actions. Participants did not like too much text information or the presence of confidence intervals. From a decision-making perspective, use of the probability format was associated with greater concordance in actions taken by participants compared to the other 3 risk information formats. DISCUSSION: By focusing on nurses' preferences and decisions with several risk information display formats and collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, we have provided meaningful insights for the design of clinical decision-support systems containing complex quantitative information. CONCLUSION: This study adds to our knowledge of presenting risk information to nurses within clinical decision-support systems. We encourage those developing risk-based systems for inpatient nurses to consider expressing risk in a probability format and include a graph (with average line) to display the patient's recent trends.
