In this video, I'm going to present the paper designing for
inaccessible Emergency Medical Service contexts: Development
and evaluation of the contextual secondary video toolkit. My name
is Paul Schlosser, and my co-author is Ben Matthews.
So for this project, we developed a novel participatory
design method for emergency medical service contexts. And we
use this method to generate novel use cases for augmented
reality in the space. However, based on our experience, the
method could also be used, for example, to investigate use
cases for smartphones, wearable technology, or voice assistants.
In the pre hospital environment, quite a bit of HCI research has
been done. In the previous years, most of the projects that
have been conducted were either ethnographic workplace studies
or technological papers that, for example, proposed the use of
mesh networks in the pre-hospital environment, so to
connect multiple staff members with each other. There are two
participatory design projects that have been conducted in this
space. The first one was conducted by Kristensen in 2006.
And they in collaboration with domain experts and other
stakeholders investigated how staff could be supported during
mass casualty incidents by technology. And then there's a
more recent study run by Pilemalm who investigated how
volunteers, firefighters and EMS services could work more closely
together in rural areas. Although both of the
participatory design projects were very successful, the
authors and others have acknowledged that running
participatory design workshops for emergency medical services
can be challenging for example, because access to the periodical
environment is quite limited. But maybe most importantly, also
because staff are usually very busy and therefore cannot commit
much time to design workshops.
As soon as we realized that those challenges make it very
difficult to implement participatory design processes
with current methods, we decided to develop a new method, and we
relied on a triangulation of different research methods and
design methods. From human factors we incorporated elements
of the video cued recall debrief. So the video cued
recall debrief basically involves recording domain
experts during their work, and then interviewing them
afterwards about the decisions they made, while playing back
the video. From ethnography and digital ethnography, we borrowed
the idea to use secondary video material instead of primary
video material for contexts that are difficult to access. And
then from design research, we incorporated the idea to use
card based systems to structure an activity.
So how exactly does the contextual secondary video
toolkit work? Basically it relies on secondary video
material. And in our case, we created a three minute video
from a TV show called emergency down under and this TV show
portrays one Emergency Medical Services mission. And we decided
to put little segments or screenshots and quotes from that
mission, on on card. So those are our scenario cards. And then
to represent a technology that could be useful in that context,
we created feature cards which for example, illustrate that
augmented reality, which was the technology in our case, can
superimpose text on the environment. So those cards gave
participant an idea of what can be done with a certain
technology. In the workshops, we use the scenario cards as
prompts for participants to take notes during the video and write
down basically everything they found interesting. Strategies
they observe the staff emplying, technology the staff was
employing, and maybe also thought processes that staff
could have. Then these observations were discussed and
in further steps feature cards were assigned to certain phases
of admission. And basically staff was identifying what
feature of a technology in our case, augmented reality could be
relevant during certain certain parts of the mission.
We conducted a total of four workshops with seven staff. They
lasted between 45 and 100 minutes, and were audio and
video recorded. We then use thematic analysis and discourse
analysis to generate the outcomes that we present in the
paper.
In this presentation, I just want to give you a very quick
overview of our results. And I'll focus on one particular
instance during workshop three, where a participant picked up on
the fact that staff in the video that we showed arrived in a
helicopter, but departed in road based ambulance. So when the
participant was discussing the fact he said, if we are here,
and then he points at the screen, as you can see in the
illustration, as well, and the helicopter is a 10 Minute
ambulance ride to that side, and then he points at the corner of
the room. And there's no heli pad at Liverpool, which is the
hospital that's relevant for the video. So then you land at an
airfield and running and then 10 minutes in, that's almost half
an hour of fiddling around off time of lost time. So this
statement is interesting for multiple different reasons.
First, it's interesting that the participant picked it because
it's not really highlighted in the video. So our assumption
here is the participants were basically using the video
material as an incomplete particular to highlight certain
aspects that they thought we wouldn't pick up on and they
thought were relevant for us to understand to work together with
them on inventing technological solutions. Furthermore, it's
interesting that the participants says 'we'. So here,
we can see a bit how they actually identify with the
people shown in the video. And he also makes assumptions about
the hospital, which aren't really portrayed or shown in the
video so we actually don't know whether it is heli pad at
Liverpool from from the video, but based on his own experience,
the participant assumes that this is the fact.
Further outcomes that we were able to generate are the CSVT,
our method, allowed open communication about breakdowns,
acted as an experience trigger, as I've illustrated before. The
cards structured interaction. And finally, the cards also
allowed to connect challenges with opportunities for
technology support. So overall, we can conclude that secondary
video can be quite valuable in design. And we would like to
evaluate CSVT in different contexts in the future.
Thanks a lot for your attention. And if you have any questions
about this research, please feel free to reach out to us or just
review the paper in the ACM Digital Library. Thank you