Advertisement

Clinical Data Capture using a Pressure Sensitive Graphics Pad — APACHE Scoring in the Intensive Therapy Unit

  • R. G. Jones
  • P. O. Collinson
  • M. Howes
  • G. Boran

Abstract

The success or failure of any computer application rests heavily on user acceptance. The increasing power and decreasing cost and size of computer facilities have led to the widespread promotion of microcomputers in the medical field for a variety of applications. However, full realisation of the computer’s potential has yet to be made due, in part, to deficiencies in the human-computer interface (Schneiderman 1986). The standard software interface uses a QWERTY keyboard, usually combined with a series of menus. Unfortunately, this often proves unacceptable in clinical situations. Medical users (doctors and nurses) are rarely familiar with keyboards and few are skilled typists. Ergonomic constraints limit the suitability of keyboard data entry in clinical situations. Keyboards are not portable, requiring that the application be tied to a particular location, or that bulky equipment (such as a lap-portable computer) is brought into the crowded clinical environment. Shortliffe (1987), principal developer of ONCOCIN, Stanford University’s expert system for cancer therapy management, has remarked that users’ difficulties with keyboards has been one of the major hindrances for the acceptance of computer solutions for clinical problems. Mouse-driven software, light-pens and touch screens have been advocated as alternatives but these rely on the combination of a screen and QWERTY keyboard and suffer from the same lack of portability. Small hand-held terminals are available, such as the PSION Organiser (Psion, London, UK), and can be used for remote data capture. But they still have an alphanumeric keyboard and in our experience suffer from drawbacks similar to those of the QWERTY keyboard.

Keywords

Skilled Typist Intensive Therapy Unit Qwerty Keyboard Liquid Crystal Display Panel Widespread Promotion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. D.H.S.S. (1983) First report of the steering group on health services information. (Chairman, E Körner). HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  2. Editorial (1986) TPN and APACHE. Lancet i: 1478Google Scholar
  3. Foley J, Wallace V, Chan P (1984) The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 4: 13–48Google Scholar
  4. Knaus WA, Draper EA, Wagner DP, Zimmerman JE (1985) APACHE II: a severity of disease classification system. Crit Care Med 13: 818–829PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Morgan CJ, Branthwaite MA (1986) Severity scoring in intensive care. Br Med J 292: 1546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Schneiderman B (1986) Designing the user interface. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MassGoogle Scholar
  7. Shortliffe, EH (1987) Computer programs to support clinical decision making. JAMA 258: 61–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. G. Jones
  • P. O. Collinson
  • M. Howes
  • G. Boran

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations