Usability and Quality of UCISAB, a Clinical Decision Support System for Optimization of Analgesia and Sedation Infusions in the ICU: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional, Mixed-Methods Usability Evaluation in Colombia

Background: The management of sedative and analgesic infusions in intensive care units (ICUs) represents a global clinical challenge. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have emerged as an approach to facilitate protocol standardization and mitigate adverse effects associated with prolonged sedation and analgesia. Objective: To evaluate the usability and technical quality of UCISAB, a CDSS designed to optimize sedoanalgesia in the ICU. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, mixed-methods usability evaluation was conducted. A prototype was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the User Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS), complemented by a qualitative analysis of open-ended comments. Results: A total of 31 physicians participated (attending physicians and residents). The mean SUS usability score was 66.13 (SD ±21.26), categorized as “Marginal High.” On the uMARS, the median scores were 4.28 for objective quality (good), 3.75 for subjective quality (acceptable), and 4.33 for impact (good). The stated willingness to apply the tool’s recommendations in clinical practice reached 93.5%, with a median intention-to-use score (uMARS) of 4.0 (good). Exploratory analysis revealed no significant difference in SUS scores between residents and attending physicians (p = 0.072). In these exploratory comparisons, statistically significant differences by professional role were found only in the uMARS dimensions: objective quality (p < 0.001), subjective quality (p = 0.023), and impact (p = 0.036). Qualitative feedback suggested that the tab-based architecture may increase cognitive load among expert users, highlighting a need for interface simplification. Conclusions: UCISAB showed favorable perceived quality and a high stated willingness to use, while usability remained marginal; further interface and pharmacological refinements, together with prospective clinical validation in real-world settings, are required before routine implementation. Professional role may influence perceived quality, suggesting the potential value of adaptive interface designs; however, this association requires confirmation in future studies. Developing systems that optimize sedation and analgesia in critical care remains an unmet need in ICUs.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2026-09-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15187191
Primary Topic
Electronic Health Records Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Usability and Quality of UCISAB, a Clinical Decision Support System for Optimization of Analgesia and Sedation Infusions in the ICU: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional, Mixed-Methods Usability Evaluation in Colombia

Nadia Juliana Proaños, Rosa‐Helena Bustos, Martha Ximena Leon, Peter Vergara-Ramirez et al.
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Electronic Health Records Systems
article

Usability and Quality of UCISAB, a Clinical Decision Support System for Optimization of Analgesia and Sedation Infusions in the ICU: A Multicenter, Cross-Sectional, Mixed-Methods Usability Evaluation in Colombia

Nadia Juliana Proaños, Rosa‐Helena Bustos, Martha Ximena Leon, Peter Vergara-Ramirez, M. Mena, Fernando Ríos Barbosa, Cinthya Galindo, German David Castillo-Suárez
article en

Abstract

Background: The management of sedative and analgesic infusions in intensive care units (ICUs) represents a global clinical challenge. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have emerged as an approach to facilitate protocol standardization and mitigate adverse effects associated with prolonged sedation and analgesia. Objective: To evaluate the usability and technical quality of UCISAB, a CDSS designed to optimize sedoanalgesia in the ICU. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional, mixed-methods usability evaluation was conducted. A prototype was evaluated using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the User Mobile Application Rating Scale (uMARS), complemented by a qualitative analysis of open-ended comments. Results: A total of 31 physicians participated (attending physicians and residents). The mean SUS usability score was 66.13 (SD ±21.26), categorized as “Marginal High.” On the uMARS, the median scores were 4.28 for objective quality (good), 3.75 for subjective quality (acceptable), and 4.33 for impact (good). The stated willingness to apply the tool’s recommendations in clinical practice reached 93.5%, with a median intention-to-use score (uMARS) of 4.0 (good). Exploratory analysis revealed no significant difference in SUS scores between residents and attending physicians (p = 0.072). In these exploratory comparisons, statistically significant differences by professional role were found only in the uMARS dimensions: objective quality (p < 0.001), subjective quality (p = 0.023), and impact (p = 0.036). Qualitative feedback suggested that the tab-based architecture may increase cognitive load among expert users, highlighting a need for interface simplification. Conclusions: UCISAB showed favorable perceived quality and a high stated willingness to use, while usability remained marginal; further interface and pharmacological refinements, together with prospective clinical validation in real-world settings, are required before routine implementation. Professional role may influence perceived quality, suggesting the potential value of adaptive interface designs; however, this association requires confirmation in future studies. Developing systems that optimize sedation and analgesia in critical care remains an unmet need in ICUs.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(18)
Universidad de La Sabana (CO)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Electronic Health Records Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.