Seo Woosuk, Li Jiaqi, Zhang Zhan, Zheng Chuxuan, Singh Hardeep, Pasupathy Kalyan, Mahajan Prashant, Park Sun Young
School of Information, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States.
Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems, Pace University, New York, NY, United States.
JMIR Form Res. 2025 Apr 21;9:e68891. doi: 10.2196/68891.
In the emergency department (ED), health care providers face extraordinary pressures in delivering accurate diagnoses and care, often working with fragmented or inaccessible patient histories while managing severe time constraints and constant interruptions. These challenges and pressures may lead to potential errors in the ED diagnostic process and risks to patient safety. With advances in technology, interventions have been developed to support ED providers in such pressured settings. However, these interventions may not align with the current practices of ED providers. To better design ED provider-centered interventions, identifying their needs in the diagnostic process is critical.
This study aimed to identify ED providers' needs in the diagnostic process through participatory design sessions and to propose design guidelines for provider‑centered technological interventions that support decision‑making and reduce errors.
We conducted a participatory design study with ED providers to validate their needs and identify considerations for designing ED provider-centered interventions to improve diagnostic safety. We used 9 technological intervention ideas as storyboards to address the study participants' needs. We had participants discuss the use cases of each intervention idea to assess their needs during the ED care process and facilitated co-design activities with the participants to improve the technological intervention designs. We audio- and video-recorded the design sessions. We then analyzed session transcripts, field notes, and design sketches. In total, we conducted 6 design sessions with 17 ED frontline providers.
Through design sessions with ED providers, we identified 4 key needs in the diagnostic process: information integration, patient prioritization, ED provider-patient communication, and care coordination. We interpreted them as insights for designing technological interventions for ED patients. Hence, we discussed the design implications for technological interventions in four key areas: (1) enhancing ED provider-ED provider communication, (2) enhancing ED provider-patient communication, (3) optimizing the integration of advanced technology, and (4) unleashing the potential of artificial intelligence tools in the ED to improve diagnosis. This work offers evidence-based technology design suggestions for improving diagnostic processes.
This study provides unique insights for designing technological interventions to support ED diagnostic processes. By inviting ED providers into the design process, we present unique insights into the diagnostic process and design considerations for designing novel technological interventions that meet ED providers' needs in the diagnostic process.
INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/55357.
在急诊科（ED），医护人员在做出准确诊断和提供治疗时面临巨大压力，他们常常在处理不完整或难以获取的患者病史的同时，还要应对严格的时间限制和频繁的干扰。这些挑战和压力可能导致急诊科诊断过程中出现潜在错误，并对患者安全构成风险。随着技术的进步，已开发出一些干预措施来支持处于这种高压环境下的急诊科医护人员。然而，这些干预措施可能与急诊科医护人员的当前做法不一致。为了更好地设计以急诊科医护人员为中心的干预措施，识别他们在诊断过程中的需求至关重要。
本研究旨在通过参与式设计会议确定急诊科医护人员在诊断过程中的需求，并为以医护人员为中心的技术干预措施提出设计指南，以支持决策制定并减少错误。
我们与急诊科医护人员进行了一项参与式设计研究，以验证他们的需求，并确定设计以急诊科医护人员为中心的干预措施以提高诊断安全性时需要考虑的因素。我们使用9个技术干预想法作为故事板来满足研究参与者的需求。我们让参与者讨论每个干预想法的用例，以评估他们在急诊科护理过程中的需求，并与参与者共同开展设计活动以改进技术干预设计。我们对设计会议进行了音频和视频记录。然后，我们分析了会议记录、现场笔记和设计草图。我们总共与17名急诊科一线医护人员进行了6次设计会议。
通过与急诊科医护人员的设计会议，我们确定了诊断过程中的4个关键需求：信息整合、患者优先级排序、急诊科医护人员与患者沟通以及护理协调。我们将其解读为为急诊科患者设计技术干预措施的见解。因此，我们讨论了在四个关键领域进行技术干预的设计意义：（1）加强急诊科医护人员之间的沟通，（2）加强急诊科医护人员与患者的沟通，（3）优化先进技术的整合，（4）释放急诊科人工智能工具在改善诊断方面的潜力。这项工作为改进诊断过程提供了基于证据的技术设计建议。
本研究为设计支持急诊科诊断过程的技术干预措施提供了独特见解。通过邀请急诊科医护人员参与设计过程，我们对诊断过程以及设计满足急诊科医护人员在诊断过程中需求的新型技术干预措施的设计考虑因素提出了独特见解。
国际注册报告识别号（IRRID）：RR2-10.2196/55357。
