Computerisation and Decision Making in Neonatal Intensive Care: A Cognitive Engineering Investigation

  • Eugenio Alberdi
  • Ken Gilhooly
  • Jim Hunter
  • Robert Logie
  • Andy Lyon
  • Neil McIntosh
  • Jan Reiss

Abstract

This paper reports results from a cognitive engineering study that lookedat the role of computerised monitoring in neonatal intensive care. A range of methodologies was used: interviews with neonatal staff, ward observations, and experimental techniques. The purpose was to investigate the sources of information used by clinicians when making decisions in the neonatal ICU. It was found that, although it was welcomed by staff, computerised monitoring played a secondary role in the clinicians' decision making (especially for junior and nursing staff) and that staff used the computer less often than indicated by self-reports. Factors that seemed to affect staff use of the computer were the lack (or shortage) of training on the system, the specific clinical conditions involved, and the availability of alternative sources of information. These findings have relevant repercussions for the design of computerised decision support in intensive care and suggest ways in which computerised monitoring can be enhanced, namely: by systematic staff training, by making available online certain types of clinical information, by adapting the user interface, and by developing intelligent algorithms.

Intensive care computerised monitoring decision support cognitive engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Gardner RM, Sittig DF, Budd MC. Computers in the intensive care unit: Match or mismatch. In: Shoemaker WO, ed. Textbook of critical care. Philadelphia: Saunders, 1989: 240-259Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blum BI. Clinical information systems — a review. In: Medical informatics (special issue). Western J Med 1986 (Dee); 145: 791-797Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Green CA, Gilhooly KJ, Logie R, Ross DG. Human factors and computerisation in intensive care units: A review. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1991; 8: 95-100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cunningham S, Deere S, Symon A, Elton RA, McIntosh N. A randomized control trial of computerised physiological trend monitoring in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1998; 26 (12): 2053-2060PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shortliffe EH. The adolescence of A] in medicine: Will the field come of age in the'90s? Al in Medicine 1993; 5: 93-106Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Glaeser DH, Thomas LJ. Computer monitoring in patient care. Ann Rev Biophys Bioeng 1975; 4: 449-476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perrault LE, Wiederhod G. System design and evaluation. In: Shortliffe EH, Perrault, LE, Fagan LM, Wiederhold G, eds. Medical informatics: Computer applications in health care. NewYork: Addison-Wesley, 1990: 151-178Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McIntosh N, Ducker DA, Bass CA. MARY — a computerised neonatal cot monitoring system. ITCM 1989; November: 272-282Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Deere S, Cunningham S, McIntosh N. Staff acceptance of computerised cot monitoring in a neonatal (NN) intensive care unit. Biol Neonate 1992; 62: 185Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Alberdi E, Logie R. Applying cognitive theories and methods to the design of computerised medical decision support. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1998: 30-35Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Norman DA. Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S.W. Draper, eds. User centered system design. New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986: 31-61Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patel VL, Kaufman DR, Magder SA. The acquisition of medical expertise in complex dynamic environments. In: Ericsson KA, ed. The road to excellence. The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996: 127-163Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cunningham S, Deere S, Elton RA, McIntosh N. Neo-natal physiological trend monitoring by computer. Int J ClinMonit Comput 1992; 9: 221-227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ericsson KA, Simon H. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press, 1984Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Alberdi E, Becher JC, Gilhooly K, Hunter J, Logie R, Lyon A, McIntosh N, Reiss J. Decision support in the neonatal intensive care unit: Expertise differences in the interpretation of monitored physiological data. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics. Oxford, 1998: OctoberGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cunningham S, Deere S, Elton R, McIntosh N. Comparison of nurse and computer charting of physiological variables in an intensive care unit. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1996; 13: 235-241PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salatian A, Hunter J. ASSOCIATE: An approach to the interpretation of ICU data. Working Notes of IDAMAP-96 (Workshop on Intelligent Data Analysis in Medicine and Pharmacology), ECAI-96. Budapest, 1996: 7378Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Edworthy J, Stanton N. A user-centred approach to the design and evaluation of auditory warning signals: 1. Methodology. Ergonomics 1995; 38: 2262-2280PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eugenio Alberdi
    • 1
  • Ken Gilhooly
    • 1
  • Jim Hunter
    • 2
  • Robert Logie
    • 1
  • Andy Lyon
    • 3
  • Neil McIntosh
    • 3
  • Jan Reiss
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, U.K.
  2. 2.Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenScotland, U.K.
  3. 3.Child Life and HealthUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, U.K.

Personalised recommendations