PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Journal of Clinical Medicine· 2026Q2

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

German David Castillo-Suárez, M. Mena, Nadia Juliana Proaños, Peter Vergara-Ramirez et al.

Short summary

UCISAB, a clinical decision support system for ICU sedoanalgesia, achieved a marginal high usability score (SUS 66.13) and good perceived quality (uMARS objective 4.28, impact 4.33), with 93.5% of 31 physicians willing to use it.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • UCISAB, a CDSS for ICU sedoanalgesia, received a marginal high usability score (SUS 66.13) from 31 physicians.
  • The system scored well on objective quality (uMARS 4.28) and impact (uMARS 4.33), but acceptably on subjective quality (uMARS 3.75).
  • 93.5% of participants expressed willingness to use UCISAB's recommendations in practice.
  • Qualitative feedback highlighted that the tab-based interface might increase cognitive load for expert users.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

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.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2026 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Health Information Management

Health Information ManagementHealth Professions