Table 4.
Acceptability and usability of PCplanner app system
| Characteristic | Intervention family members (N = 18) | Clinicians (N = 10) |
|---|---|---|
| Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, mean (SD)* | 14 (1.4) | 12.4 (2.8) |
| Mean (SD) | 14 (1.4) | 12.4 (2.8) |
| Median (IQR) | 14 (13, 15) | 12 (11.3, 14.5) |
| Systems Usability Scale, mean (SD)† | 21.1 (1.7) | 15.2 (1.8) |
| Mean (SD) | 21.1 (1.7) | 15.2 (1.8) |
| Median (IQR) | 22 (20, 22.5) | 15.5 (14, 16) |
| PCplanner program quality was excellent/good, n (%) | 18 (100) | 9 (90) |
| PCplanner program met my all/most of my needs, n (%) | 18 (100) | 8 (80) |
| I would generally/definitely recommend PCplanner, n (%) | 18 (100) | 8 (80) |
| I am very/mostly satisfied with PCplanner, n (%) | 18 (100) | 8 (80) |
| I was able to, n (%) | ||
| Log in | 16 (89) | 9 (90) |
| Complete the program | 15 (83) | 9 (90) |
| I was satisfied/very satisfied with PCplanner, n (%) | 15 (83) | 8 (80) |
| I strongly agree/agree that I would like to use PCplanner if I had a loved one in the ICU, n (%) | 17 (94) | 8 (80) |
| I thought PCplanner was easy to use, neutral/agree, n (%) | 18 (100) | 6 (60) |
| What did you like most about PCplanner?‡ | -It was very user friendly. | -Accessible |
| -The bridge illustration was sooooo me. | -Easy to make necessary changes and comments | |
| -Ease of use and good description of the PCplanner. | -Helps focus conversation based on needs | |
| -It was simple. | ||
| -It was very well thought out, you could understand oh so well, and the questions was very well thought out. | ||
| -Easy to understand | ||
| -Easy to find | ||
| -Very easy to use | ||
| How could we improve PCplanner? | -Post information about it in patient rooms | -Logging into web app took too many steps |
Definition of abbreviations: IQR = interquartile range; PCplanner = Palliative Care Planner.
*
Client Satisfaction Questionnaire: range 0 (worst) to 16 (best)
†
Systems Usability Scale: range 0 (worst) to 25 (best)
‡
Written feedback from users.