gms | German Medical Science

63. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e. V. (GMDS)

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie

02. - 06.09.2018, Osnabrück

Patient summary for emergencies: evaluating two prototyped graphical user interfaces for clinical use

Meeting Abstract

  • Jan Wohlmann - University Hospital Muenster, Office for eHealth, Muenster, Deutschland
  • Christian Haschert - Institute of Aerospace Medicine, German Aerospace Center, Cologne, Deutschland
  • Michael Storck - University of Muenster, Muenster, Deutschland
  • Judith Born - University Hospital Muenster, Office for eHealth, Muenster, Deutschland
  • Christian Juhra - University Hospital Muenster, Office for eHealth, Muenster, Deutschland

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie. 63. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie e.V. (GMDS). Osnabrück, 02.-06.09.2018. Düsseldorf: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House; 2018. DocAbstr. 115

doi: 10.3205/18gmds076, urn:nbn:de:0183-18gmds0767

Veröffentlicht: 27. August 2018

© 2018 Wohlmann et al.
Dieser Artikel ist ein Open-Access-Artikel und steht unter den Lizenzbedingungen der Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (Namensnennung). Lizenz-Angaben siehe



Introduction: Emergency-relevant patient information is often missing at an emergency site [1]. To tackle this problem, a text-based Medical Emergency Dataset (MED) for the Electronic Health Card (EHC) has been announced in Germany [2]. However, since only publicly insured citizens own an EHC and usage outside of Germany is unfeasible, an architecture providing a Patient Summary for Emergencies (PSE) has been proposed [3]. The PSE holds information of the MED model [4] and additional emergency-relevant findings and documents, such as X-Rays, displayable on mobile devices or computers. In this study, two PSE click-dummy interfaces (CDI) were evaluated by clinicians, to create a user-friendly graphical user interface (GUI) for a monitor-based visualization at the hospital.

Methods: The first developed CDI (CDI-A) had a more subdivided approach presenting the information, with three main tabs and an accordion-function for each emergency-item, revealing more detailed information on activation. The second CDI (CDI-B) showed all information arranged in a scrollable list view. Color scheme and text size were identical. Both CDIs included the same information regarding a fictional patient. An online questionnaire was developed using LimeSurvey ( Modified questions based on ‘’ [5] were created. Self-designed questions were added. The survey was structured as follows:

Working environment
Evaluation of CDI-A
Evaluation of CDI-B
Questions comparing CDI-A & CDI-B.

Four CDI specific topics were addressed:

  • Clarity
  • Design
  • Usability
  • Information and structure.

5-point-scale items, yes/no-questions and open-question-text-fields were used in the survey. A web-link to the corresponding CDI was shown per question.

The questionnaire was shared with clinicians from the TraumaNetwork NorthWest and the University Hospital Muenster. The survey was available for two weeks. 251 physicians and mailing lists were contacted via email. A reminder was send at the beginning of the second week.

Results: Overall, 79 participants opened the questionnaire. 59 physicians fully completed it, of which six individuals declared they do not treat emergency patients and were thus excluded from further analysis. 53 complete surveys were evaluated.

60.4% of the physicians preferred CDI-A over CDI-B for clinical use. 88.7% of the participants think that their preferred CDI could positively influence their work in case of emergency. Regarding CDI specific topics, none of the two CDIs always scored better on all of the different questions. However, both CDIs scored overall positive on most questions, with CDI-A often being slightly preferred over CDI-B. When asked about a standardized PSE by different vendors, 92.5% of the participants agreed that it should be designed and structured similarly.

Discussion: A more subdivided and structured GUI was preferred by a majority of the surveyed physicians. As for clinical use, this design approach seems most feasible using a PC-monitor. Nonetheless, further usability-tests are scheduled. Since the primary application area for a PSE is at the emergency site, a portable device-based GUI is currently being evaluated. It is expected that for this operation field, a design approach similarly to CDI-B is more practical. For the future rollout, it is essential that vendors agree upon uniform GUI standards.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The authors declare that an ethics committee vote is not required.


Shapiro JS, Kannry J, Kushniruk AW, Kuperman G. Emergency physicians' perceptions of health information exchange. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14:700-5. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M2507 Externer Link
Stafford N. Germany is set to introduce e-health cards by 2018. BMJ. 2015 Jun;350:h2991. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h2991 Externer Link
Storck M, Wohlmann J, Krudwig S, Vogel A, Born J, Weber T, et al. A Secure Architecture to Provide a Medical Emergency Dataset for Patients in Germany and Abroad. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:230-4. DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-830-3-230 Externer Link
gematik. Informationsmodell Notfalldaten-Management (NFDM). 2017 Dec [cited 2018 Mar]. Available from: Externer Link
Bartel T, Quint G, Weichert S, de Rosalia P, Heuwing B, Mandl T, et al. Vermittlung von Praxiswissen zu Web-Usability: Aktueller Entwicklungsstand von usability-toolkit. Usability Professionals. 2009:289-91.