Skip to main content

Table 1 Participant feedback from Phase three

From: Clinical decision support software for diabetic foot risk stratification: development and formative evaluation

Evaluation

Participants

Methodology used

Feedback

Changes made

Phase three

1 VS

7 Podiatrists

4 AH

2 Nurses

1 NP

1 AHW

8 DE

8 Experts and 20 Novices

Web-based review

One-to-one interviews

Observation

Focus group

1. Risk error false negative

1. Forced completion of all sections

2. Language

 a) HL7

 b) Spelling

 c) Subjective terms

 d) Incorrect definitions

 e) Terminology

2. Language

 a) Unchanged, important

 b) Corrected

 c) Removed

 d) Removed

 e) Unchanged

3. Workflow

 a) Risk display at bottom of form

 b) Send at bottom of form

 c) Boxes around each section

3. Improved Workflow

 a) Changed

 b) Unchanged/can be incorporated

 c) Unchanged

4. Questions

 a) Self-care questions too vague

 b) Education questions objective

 c) Education questions not specific foot knowledge

4. Questions

 a) Simplified; two direct questions

 b) Simplified; one direct question

 c) One specific foot question

5. Suggestions

 a) Opportunistic education within design

 b) Free text section

5. Suggestions

 a) Unchanged/can be incorporated

 b) Unchanged/can be incorporated

6. Dislikes

 a) Too many pens in foot deformity

 b) Letters in foot deformity

 c) Don’t call it deformity

 a) Unchanged

 b) Unchanged

 c) Unchanged

  1. VS vascular surgeon, AH allied health, NP nurse practitioner, AHW Aboriginal Health Worker, DE diabetes educator