Design thinking - a critical analysis.

The latest buzz phrase to enter the world of design research is “Design Thinking”. But is this anything new and does it really have any practical or theoretical relevance to the design world? Many sceptics believe the term has more to do with business strategy and little to do with the complex process of designing products, services and systems. Moreover, many view the term as misleading and a cheap attempt to piggyback the world of business management onto design. This paper seeks to ask is design thinking anything new? Several authors have explicitly or implicitly articulated the term “Design Thinking” before, such as Peter Rowe’s seminal book “Design Thinking” [1] first published in 1987 and Herbert Simon’s “The Sciences of the Artificial” [2] first published in 1969. In Tim Brown’s “Change by Design” [3], design thinking is thought of as a system of three overlapping spaces rather than a sequence of orderly steps namely inspiration – the problem or opportunity that motivates the search for solutions; ideation – the process of generating, developing and testing ideas; and implementation – the path that leads from the design studio, lab and factory to the market. This paper seeks to examine and critically analyse the tenets of this new design thinking manifesto set against three case studies of modern design practice. As such, the paper will compare design thinking theory with the reality of design in practice.

Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time

Understanding nurses’ decision-making when managing weaning from mechanical ventilation: a study of novice and experienced critical care nurses in Scotland and Greece.

Aim and objectives To examine how nurses collect and use cues from respiratory assessment to inform their decisions as they wean patients from ventilatory support. Background Prompt and accurate identification of the patient's ability to sustain reduction of ventilatory support has the potential to increase the likelihood of successful weaning. Nurses' information processing during the weaning from mechanical ventilation has not been well-described. Design A descriptive ethnographic study exploring critical care nurses' decision-making processes when weaning mechanically ventilated patients from ventilatory support in the real setting. Methods Novice and expert Scottish and Greek nurses from two tertiary intensive care units were observed in real practice of weaning mechanical ventilation and were invited to participate in reflective interviews near the end of their shift. Data were analysed thematically using concept maps based on information processing theory. Ethics approval and informed consent were obtained. Results Scottish and Greek critical care nurses acquired patient-centred objective physiological and subjective information from respiratory assessment and previous knowledge of the patient, which they clustered around seven concepts descriptive of the patient's ability to wean. Less experienced nurses required more encounters of cues to attain the concepts with certainty. Subjective criteria were intuitively derived from previous knowledge of patients' responses to changes of ventilatory support. All nurses used focusing decision-making strategies to select and group cues in order to categorise information with certainty and reduce the mental strain of the decision task. Conclusions Nurses used patient-centred information to make a judgment about the patients' ability to wean. Decision-making strategies that involve categorisation of patient-centred information can be taught in bespoke educational programmes for mechanical ventilation and weaning. Relevance to clinical practice Advanced clinical reasoning skills and accurate detection of cues in respiratory assessment by critical care nurses will ensure optimum patient management in weaning mechanical ventilation