The suggestions given by the users were taken into consideration, leading to the creation date of the occurrence being added to the active occurrences table and the occur-rence states page being placed next to the occuroccur-rence victim information.
Due to the fact that the non-administrative emergency central test protocol was fairly similar to the administrative emergency central test protocol and the user interface was the same (the only visible changes were the restrictions implemented on each emergency central type), the results gathered were almost identical. The analysis of the results contemplated on figure 6.3 proves this assertion, as every section results almost equates to the ones described in figure 6.2.
The only question result that must be discussed, as it is the only one that does not have a connection to the administrative emergency central test protocol is the question 7 from section 4 (The monitoring page is an asset to ensure that the execution of the occurrence proceeds smoothly). The answers to this question were 100% positive, divided into 36%
of answers as Agree and 65% as Completely Agree. This shows that the users responded positively to the monitoring page feature as a whole.
As previous, the test users responded positively to their experience in accessing a non-administrative emergency central. Regarding the non-administrative emergency central questionnaire, the users also gathered some observations or possible application improvements, such as:
• The notifications table in the monitoring page should refresh automatically.
• In the occurrence details the victim should come before the states.
• Searching by occurrence number is difficult, because the numbers have no logical meaning.
The first observation, although taken into consideration, was not implemented due to shortage of time, being given priority to other unresolved matters. The second ob-servation, as previously stated was corrected. The third observation was discarded, as the occurrence number was the search parameter deemed most useful, as it identifies uniquely each occurrence.
The hospital test protocol, although part of the same application, belonged to a differ-ent subsystem. So, the results gathered from the questionnaire were target of discussion.
The analysis of figure 6.4 allows for the conclusion that:
– In section 2, there was no negative results. The only non-positive result came from question 2 (The search bar is useful), where a user working in the civil protection sector chose the No Opinion option, 4% of the total in that question. The remain-ing questions of this section were overwhelmremain-ingly positive, where the Completely Agree option exceeded the Agree option by at least 20% in all questions, and is most predominant in question 1 (It is easy to understand which victims have not yet been checked-in by the hospital), where 84% test users chose the Completely Agree option and 16% chose Agree, with a difference of 68%.
– In section 3, there was only 1 negative result from question 6 (The information re-ceived on a patient’s evaluation page is understandable) from a test user working in
the civil protection sector. There was also 1 No opinion option selected in question 7 (Information regarding the procedures applied on the victim is easy to understand), also from a civil protection test user. The remaining answers were positive with the Completely Agree option percentage exceeding the Agree option considerably, especially in question 1 (The graphical interface of the details page is aesthetically ap-pealing), where the Completely Agree option gathered 80% of the submitted results.
Question 8 was the only 1 that the Agree option (60%) exceeded the Completely Agree option (40%). Accounting the fact that most of the test users were not from the healthcare sector, the tooltips proved to be useful for the user’s understanding of the information being presented to them, as can be seen by question 8 (The tooltips present in the scale procedures are useful and sufficient for understanding the displayed values) results (68% Completely Agree and 32% Agree).
– Section 4 followed the trend from the previous sections, with a overwhelming posi-tive reception. Only 1 answer was non-posiposi-tive.
– In section 6, all the test users considered the application to be useful in a real-life context, with 72% of the users voting Completely Agree and 28% voting Agree. In terms of test protocol difficulty, 4% considered it to be Difficult, 56% considered it to be Easy and 40% considered to be Very Easy.
As it can concluded, the hospital subsystem of the application received an overall pos-itive reception, in terms of user satisfaction with its use. It was also gathered observations and improvement suggestions from the users, such as:
• All the procedures should have a tooltip with a description of each one.
• If implemented in hospitals it will be very useful for tracking everything that hap-pened to the patient prior to his admission.
• Should allow insertion of contact and relationship of significant person to contact in case of need.
The first observation, although taken into consideration, was not implemented due to shortage of time, being given priority to other unresolved matters. The third observa-tion was not considered, as of now, because its implementaobserva-tion required to change the structure of the data model, so it will be included in the future work plans.
The statistical measures used to analyse the chronometric results were the mean (arithmetic), median and standard deviation).
From the results highlighted in figure 6.5:
• Phase 1 had a mean of 22 seconds, a median of 21 seconds and a standard deviation of 7.34. The value of the standard deviation.
• Phase 2 had a mean of 35.04 seconds, a median of 36 seconds and a standard deviation of 8.13.
• Phase 3 had a mean of 76.44 seconds, a median of 76 seconds and a standard deviation of 11.84.
• Phase 4 had a mean of 7.08 seconds, a median of 6 seconds and a standard deviation of 2.29.
• Phase 5 had a mean of 6.52 seconds, a median of 7 seconds and a standard deviation of 1.56.
• The total had a mean of 147.08 seconds, a median of 146 seconds and a standard deviation of 21.78. In minutes, these values equated to a mean of 2.45, a median of 2.43 and a standard deviation of 0.36.
From the results highlighted in figure 6.6:
• Phase 1 had a mean of 10.72 seconds, a median of 10 seconds and a standard deviation of 4.96.
• Phase 2 had a mean of 39.68 seconds, a median of 37 seconds and a standard deviation of 10.71.
• Phase 3 had a mean of 116.88 seconds, a median of 107 seconds and a standard deviation of 31.23.
• The total had a mean of 167.28 seconds, a median of 162 seconds and a standard deviation of 40.46. In minutes, these values equated to a mean of 2.79, a median of 2.70 and a standard deviation of 0.67.
From the results highlighted in figure 6.7:
• In minutes, the total had a mean of 5.89, a median of 6.3 and a standard deviation of 1.11.
Conclusions
This chapter presents a summary of the project’s development, its main contributions, and draws conclusions about the accomplished work. Furthermore, it describes the main limitations of the project and proposes future work.