Table 2.

The major topics and sub themes with participant counts, percentages and examples. N = 120

Major topics	Sub themes	Examples
Alarms	Alarm limit set up	Participant #14: Alarm-limits are set differently by different people - > either the monitor then alerts very quickly or not at all for long.
	(22 participants, 18.3%)
	False alarms	Participant #9: There are too many false alarms that have no relevance. The ideal would be: If there is no message displayed on the monitor, everything is fine.
	(18 participants, 15%)
	Alarm fatigue	Participant #48: Frequent false alarms lead to ignoring of alarms.
	(12 participants, 10%)
	Default settings	Participant #71: Impractical default alarm-limits.
	(10 participants 8.3%)
Artifacts	16 participants (13.3%)	Participant #12: SpO2 artifacts. Artifacts of the ECG caused by improper positioning of the electrodes.
		Participant #66: Cautery artifacts on the ECG.
		Participant #107: Distinguish artifacts from reality.
Software	Information presentation	Participant #49: Much visual and auditory information, the sense for the relevant gets lost.
	(41 participants, 34.2%)	Participant #102: For a comprehensive state assessment, the gaze must travel across multiple monitors and numbers, which must then be interpreted.
	Interface design	Participant #47: Too many clicks needed to configure the monitor. Great tools hidden in submenus, so they are hard to find.
	(17 participants, 14.2%)
		Participant #71: In unfamiliar monitors, the patient is effectively worse off due as the vital-signs are perceived much worse and slower.
	Intuitiveness	Participant #23: The screen layout should be easily adjustable (intuitive as Apple products).
	(11 participants, 9.2%)
		Participant #98: Operation is non-intuitive.
Hardware	Cables	Participant #23: Wireless would be interesting. A wish: a single device on the patient, which measures all vital signs.
	(29 participants, 24.2%)
		Participant #106: Always cable-clutter.
		Participant #108: Cable disconnected / incorrect values measured.
	Size/weight	Participants #41: Sometimes difficult to transport, smaller transport monitors would be better.
	(24 participants, 20%)
		Participants #63: Not robust enough for the everyday run (much wear material).
		Participant #110: Patient monitoring is too heavy (kg).
	Display	Participant #36: Small display with reduced resolution. Touchscreen would probably be better or above all more intuitive.
	(10 participants, 8.3%)
		Participant #46: Numbers too small, not visible from a distance.
	Components	Participant #63: Not robust enough for the everyday run (much wear material).
	(9 participants, 7.5%)	Participant #74: loose contacts...
		Participant #98: Unreliable battery life.
Human factors	Human performance	Participant #82: One pays too little attention to the monitor.
		Participant #82: Although a pathological value is on the monitor, the user does not recognize it because a number is not readily perceptible.
	(15 participants, 12.5%)
		Participant #95: Tired: One has to look several times until the information arrives.
	Familiarization effects	Participant #13: When changing the hospital or the monitor type, it takes a long time (up to many days) to get used to the new monitors.
	(6 participants, 5%)
System factors	Lack of standardization	Participant #23: Presentation / standard alarm-limits not uniform.
	(8 participants, 6.7%)
	Work environment	Participant #97: Lighting conditions and viewing angle to the monitor.
	(7 participants, 5.8%)	Participant #114: A relatively large area with different displays that one must monitor continuously.
Comments/Suggestions	26 participants (21%)	Participant #54: Measured values for non-continuous data collection (e.g., blood pressure) should disappear after a specific time (e.g., 3 or 5 min).
		Participant #116: In emergency situations, one must get a quick and safe overview, which is not always possible with the current monitoring.