Back

No One Left Behind: Adaptive Tablet Modalities for Digitally Excluded Emergency Department Patients Design, Implementation, and Social Evidence for an Impairment-First Interface

Chowdhury, A.; Irtiza, A.

2026-04-13 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.04.11.26350686 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: The urgent care departments in Europe face a structural paradox: accelerating digitalisation is accompanied by a patient population that is disproportionately unable to engage with standard digital tools. An internal analysis at the Emergency Department (Akutafdelingen) of Nordsjaellands Hospital in Hilleroed, Denmark found that 43% of emergency patients struggle with digital solutions - a figure that reflects the predictable composition of acute care populations rather than any individual failing. Objective: This paper presents the design, iterative development, and secondary validation of the ED Adaptive Interface (v5): a prototype adaptive patient terminal developed in response to this challenge. The system operationalises what the author terms impairment-first design - a methodology that treats the most constrained patient experience as the primary design problem and derives the standard experience as a subset. The interface configures itself in under ten seconds via nurse-led setup, adapting across four axes of impairment: visual, motor, speech, and cognitive. System: Version 4 supports five accessibility modes, a heatmap pain assessment grid, a Privacy and Dignity panel, a live workflow tracker with care notifications, structured dual-category help requests, and plain-language medical term definitions across four languages. Version 5, reported here for the first time, introduces a Condition Worsening Escalation button, a Referral Pathway Display, a "Why Am I Waiting?" triage explainer, a Symptom Progression Log, MinSP/Yellow Card Scan simulation, expanded language support (seven languages: English, Danish, Arabic with full RTL layout, Turkish, Romanian, Polish, and Somali), and an expanded ten-item Communication Board. The entire system runs as a single 79-kilobyte HTML file with zero infrastructure requirements. Methods: To base the design on patient-generated evidence, two independent social media threads were subjected to an inductive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006): a primary corpus of 83 entries in the Facebook group Foreigners in Denmark (collected March 2026) and a corroborating corpus in an international community group in the Aarhus region (collected April 2026). All identifiers in both datasets were fully anonymised under GDPR Article 89 research provisions prior to analysis. No participants were contacted. Generative AI tools were used to assist with drafting, writing, and prototype code development; all scientific content, data collection, analysis, and conclusions are the sole responsibility of the authors. Results: The first discourse corpus produced five major themes corresponding to the five problem areas the prototype was designed to address: system navigation and triage literacy gaps (31 entries); language and cultural barriers (6 entries); communication failures during care (5 entries); staff overload and capacity constraints (8 entries); and pain and severity assessment failures (14 entries). The corroborating dataset supported all five themes and introduced two additional themes: differential treatment of international patients and medical gaslighting as a long-term pattern of patient advocacy failure. One structural finding - the five most-liked comments incorrectly criticised the original poster for self-referring when she had received explicit 1813 telephone triage approval - directly inspired the Referral Pathway Display and "Why Am I Waiting?" features in v5. Conclusions: The convergence of design rationale and independent social evidence across all five problem categories suggests that impairment-first design is not a niche accessibility concern but a structural approach to healthcare interface quality. The prototype is ready for a structured clinical pilot using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and semi-structured staff interviews. The long-term roadmap includes full MinSP integration, hospital PMS connectivity, and clinical validation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.4%
2
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.1%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
8.4%
5
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
6
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.3%
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.6%
9
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
10
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
11
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
12
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
14
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
15
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
16
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
17
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
18
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
20
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.2%
21
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
23
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
24
Sensors
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
25
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
26
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
27
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
28
Physiological Measurement
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.6%