Sprint 8: Empathy in Action — The Key to Effective Solutions
Welcome back! We are a-CUTE Wounds Warriors, a team from the Master’s of Human-Computer Interaction program at Carnegie Mellon University, partnering with University Hospitals of Cleveland to improve outcomes for at-home patient-administered wound care.
Concept Validation ✅
Following our ideation process last week, we encountered a new challenge: with so many ideas, how should we narrow them down to proceed further? The most effective way to address this is by conducting user testing with our target audience to evaluate the concepts and determine their desirability and comfort level. The goals of our concept validation research are:
- Understand nurse expectations and considerations for assisting with at-home wound care.
- Understand patients’ hidden needs and desirability for each concept.
- Identify our focus and direction for the final prototype
To achieve this, we planned to engage with actual users — patients and healthcare providers at University Hospitals — to evaluate the concepts in real-world settings. By conducting interview sessions with them, we can better identify which concepts are most likely to succeed, which may not be worth pursuing further, and which may need refinement or reconsideration.
Additionally, we will look for patterns and common themes in the feedback to uncover any underlying issues or opportunities for improvement. Our goal for this design phase is to narrow down our ideas to the ones that truly meet the needs and expectations of our target audience, enabling us to proceed with confidence.
Clustering ideas: Proactive vs. Reactive Approaches
With the goal of creating value for both patients and providers, we aim to improve the overall wound care experience and reduce patients’ reliance on providers by enhancing their ability and confidence in navigating unexpected problems. Specifically, we clustered our ideas into two design directions: (1) Proactive and (2) Reactive approaches
First, from a proactive perspective, we aim to prepare patients for unexpected situations before they actually encounter problems. By exploring new ways to help people digest and process information more effectively, we can potentially increase patient adherence to instructions, thereby reducing infection rates and the volume of phone calls to the clinic.
On the other hand, we also want to focus on the reactive perspective, providing immediate support when emergencies occur. Regardless of the severity of the issues, we strive to assist patients in navigating these problems independently, reducing their reliance on providers. By addressing these goals, we believe we can ultimately reduce anxiety and improve the overall wound care experience.
These are the prototype ideas we have for both ‘Proactive’, and ‘Reactive’ approaches:
Proactive Prototype Ideas
- Wound Care Hub
- Image-based Card
- Customizable Instruction Sheet
- Smart Bandage
Reactive Prototype Ideas
- HealTube
- Wound Wisdom
- Voice GPT
- Nurse Updates
Risky Assumptions: Importance-Evidence Matrix 💣
In addition to preparing all our low-fi prototypes, developing effective metrics for our prototypes has also played a crucial role in our concept validation process.
“What risky assumptions should be validated ASAP?”
Risky assumptions are those that are critical to achieving our goals but currently have the least evidence to support them. We used an Importance-Evidence Matrix to identify these risky assumptions by plotting them based on the information and evidence we have gathered and their importance to our projects. We then focused on the most important yet least supported assumptions. These assumptions can be tested either with users or validated through desk research. For example, we could explore techniques to support the idea of a smart mirror through desk research, while having in-depth conversations with patients to understand if an AI-generated voice of the provider will make them feel more reassured and trusting. With these risky assumptions in mind, we were able to conduct our research more effectively, obtaining the answers and information needed to support our arguments for the proposed solutions.
Research Questions / Hypotheses / Metrics 🙋♀️🙋
Furthermore, having a thorough plan for our research is also pivotal for our process. What questions do we have and want to learn from the users? What hypotheses do we keep in mind that need to be further examined? Also, how should we gather the data that we need to support these questions?
Take the prototype “Voice GPT” as an example. This prototype is designed to guide patients through problems by interacting with an AI agent verbally. For this prototype, the most important questions are:
- Is the voice of the provider sufficiently reassuring to patients?
- Does the voice really matter in providing reassurance?
- What specific aspects do patients value most when seeking reassurance?
To answer these questions, we decided to conduct A/B testing with different patients, using one version with the provider’s voice and another version with a generic AI voice. Similarly, we generated specific questions and metrics for each prototype to evaluate their effectiveness.
Engaging in the Field: On-site Testing @UHC 🏥
Finally, we conducted our user testing with actual Mohs surgery patients and nurses at University Hospitals in Cleveland. This on-site testing spanned two days, during which we engaged in comprehensive feedback collection and iterative refinement of our prototypes.
To maximize the value of our testing, we had a rapid iteration session in the evening, reflecting on the feedback we received on the first day. This allowed us to quickly incorporate initial feedback and make necessary adjustments before continuing with the second day of testing. By combining direct user engagement with rapid iteration, we were able to make informed adjustments and validate our concepts effectively. This rigorous testing process provided us with valuable insights, guiding us as we move forward in developing solutions that truly meet the needs of our target audience.
Conversations with Users
We split into two groups for user testing with patients, taking into account their availability and willingness to participate in our testing right after surgery. We engaged with 14 patients and 5 nurses in total, gathering a wealth of valuable feedback and comments on our prototypes.
Following the first day of testing, we conducted rapid iteration sessions. One key finding was the overall negative feedback on the Customizable Instruction Sheet prototype from both patients and nurses.
“I just want to have everything prepared,” said an 83-year-old patient. “I don’t think it’s necessary to personalize the sheet.”
“This might add 3–5 minutes to our work for each patient,” noted a UHC nurse.
Given this feedback, we decided to remove the Customizable Instruction Sheet prototype from our second day of testing and focus on more promising ideas. This allowed us to concentrate our efforts on refining and improving the prototypes with the most potential.
The Path Forward
To move forward, we plan to synthesize all the feedback received from participants and narrow it down to two main prototype ideas: one for the proactive approach and the other for the reactive methods. Our goal is to develop mid-fi prototypes that include most of the necessary content, such as detailed instructions and comprehensive FAQ sections. We will continue testing these prototypes, focusing particularly on usability feedback, which involves streamlining the user experience and optimizing the user flow for both ends — patients and providers.
During the next testing phase, we will also pay close attention to how users interact with the prototypes, identifying any pain points or areas for improvement. By gathering detailed usability feedback, we would be able to better refine our prototypes, ensuring they are intuitive, effective, and truly meet the needs of our target audience.
Stay tuned for the next update from the a-CUTE Wounds Warriors! #AWW #HealthCareInnovation #SprintRecap
*This project is not intended to contribute to generalizable knowledge and is not human subjects research.
