Table of Contents

Problem Statement

Example of the current platform

Figure 1:

User Analysis 

Flowchart

Flowchart 1:

Target Users Classes and Their Goals

Here we present the users classes in order of contact with the patients, as well as their treatment goals.

1. Paramedics

2. Nurses:

3. Doctors:

4. Other hospital staff: 

5. Patients

Patients in the ICU are critical condition. Therefore we don't consider patients as forming a user class.

Task Analysis

There are essentially two types of tasks that users engage in as part of the patient information management process. Here we will describe the two tasks with respect to the environment in which they are performed.

Common Constraints across Tasks

Task 1: Checking Patients In and Out

Task 2: Adjusting Patient Information

Interviews 

Interview 1: Doctor X

Dr. X is a young radiologist who often works in ICU. As he has very good IT skills (MIT CS level), we thought it would be a great idea to have his feedback on the current platform used for information management. He described his work in the ICU saying "Patients in ICU can stay for a few hours up to a few weeks. The goal of the hospital employees is basically first to keep patients alive, and second, if they succeed, to treat them." Dr X. then explained how the patient's data are handled by the hospital employees. "The medical information on each patient is currently stored in two different places: a file folder (paper) containing the main general information on the patient, such as the patient's medical history, physicians' observations, his age, etc. A whiteboard on which it is indicated which drugs the patient has received in the ICU, and at what time he/she received it. The whiteboard also contains key information on the patient that everybody should know, typically allergies and main diagnosis.

We asked him who used this information. He replied physicians, nurses as well as unlicensed assistive personnel need access to them. For example when unlicensed assistive personnel give a meal to a patient, they should know if the latter is allergic to it.We then inquired what key goals and needs he has which are not addressed by the current solution (file folder + whiteboard)

Key points

Interview 2: Doctor Y

Dr Y. is a young ICU physician. As the ICU is a broad topic and in our interview we focused on how patient's information is handled. He described 5 different types of information containers (everything is contained on paper except the first one):

  1. Administrative and general demographic information: everything non-medical, e.g. age/sex/address/...
  2. Basic medical information: upon the patient's arrival to the ICU, a physician interviews the patient (provided that the patient is able to talk) and writes a medical summary of 1 or 2 pages containing anything that could be of interest to treat the patient. This synopsis follows a conventional format. It will be kept within the hospital, even after the patient has left.
  3. Nurses notes: precise technical information such as drugs given (quantity/time) as well as key measurements on the patient such as blood pressure or ECG.
  4. Nurse whiteboard: Another platform for recording data measurements (blood pressure/ECG/…), drugs, key events.
  5. Assistive personnel whiteboardSummary of the previous examinations of the patient in addition to the other 4 sources of information. There are some computer applications designed for specific types of information such as medical images, but those applications aren't interconnected. 

Key points

Dr Y. enumerated his most important needs for a medical information management system:

Interview 3: MIT paramedic

M. spent a year as an MIT paramedic, so she was responsible for patients from the time that 911 or Campus Police were called until the patient was officially transferred to a nurse at the hospital. She described the typical process for handling a patient and his/her information:

paramedic dispatch begins with a one-line description of the case, sent over the radio from the 911 dispatch, such as "18 year-old male complaining of stomach ache in Next House." The paramedics respond to the dispatch with a priority number between 1 and 3 (1 being the most serious), which determines the level of urgency with which they travel in the ambulance. In practice, they would always respond with Priority 1, since without having seen the patient yet they can't be sure that there is not a life-threatening emergency. Once on the scene, the paramedics measure the vital statistics of the patient (BP, pulse, state of consciousness, etc.), make an on-site treatment is necessary, and then measure all the vital stats again. The stats and treatment are all recorded on paper carried by the paramedics. 

At this point, the paramedics will either transport the patient to MIT Medical or a local hospital, or the patient can decline to be transported and sign a waiver releasing the paramedics from responsibility. Assuming the paramedics decide to take the patient to the hospital, they will then transport them, again with a Priority number of 1, 2, or 3 (having now seen the patient, they can actually decide on the priority rather than just always choosing Priority 1). The paramedics communicate with Central Medical Emergency Direction (CMED), which coordinates between hospitals and paramedic, and they provide CMED with their priority number and another one-line summary of the patient's condition over the radio. 

At the hospital, the paramedics bring the patient and the notes they have recorded about times, statistics, and treatments to the primary triage nurse, and they once again give their one-line summary of the incident. This nurse has a mobile computer of some kind, and enters the information provided by the paramedics manually, if time allows. The paramedics then follow the patient to another room with another nurse, and they repeat their one-line description yet again to this nurse. At this point, they are no longer responsible for the patient's care. 

Finally, the paramedics fill out a full report of the incident. At MIT, this is done on a computerized system, in which the notes taken on paper by the paramedics are entered manually into a form. This form contains all of the relevant times (when the ambulance left, arrived, treated the patient, etc.) and statistics of the patient and any treatment given, and it is signed by all the paramedics who responded to the call. This record is sent to the hospital, MIT, and the ambulance service (in this case, MIT paramedic). 

Key points

M's primary concern with the way the patient information was handled was the many, many repetitions of a short, one-line summary of the incident, which they had to give to CMED and to nurse after nurse after nurse, which was often a waste of time. In addition, she felt that much of the nurses' time was wasted re-entering information already collected by the paramedics into the hospital's system. 
M. mentioned that she knew of at least one paramedic using a voice recorder for extremely urgent calls, in which there was no time for written notes, but that this created privacy issues since the recordings contained sensitive patient information. 

Takeaway Goals 

Appendix A: Images of the Existing Platform

Medical Folder

Figure 2:

Nurse Whiteboard

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Physician Prescription

Figure 6:

Physician Whiteboard

Figure 7:

Figure 8: