Multicentre retrospective evaluation shows high usability of AI-enhanced multispectral imaging tool in burn care, indicating routine implementation potential.
Accurate burn depth assessment remains difficult. AI-enhanced multispectral imaging (AI-MSI) offers objective, image-based predictions, but evidence on day-to-day usability is limited. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usability of an AI-MSI device in routine practice using a multicentre, modified Nielsen heuristic framework. A retrospective, mixed-methods study was conducted across five UK burn services (September 2024 to August 2025). Doctors and nurses who used the device completed a 12-item Likert survey mapped to six domains and free-text. Outcomes include domain means±SD, medians (IQR), and proportions of positive responses (scores ≥ 4). Mann-Whitney U compared professions; Kruskal-Wallis tested site variability; Dunn pairwise tests with Bonferroni correction were used where indicated. JASP 0.95.1 was used for analysis with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Forty-nine burn-team members (21 doctors, 28 nurses) participated. Domain means ranged 3.93 to 4.35; medians were ≥ 4.0; positive responses 65.3% to 87.8%. There were no significant differences between professions or centres. Effect sizes were small to moderate; Match & Standards showed the largest effect (ε2 = 0.15) with no pairwise differences after correction. Free-text highlighted speed, clarity of outputs, portability, and workflow fit, and suggested clearer on-screen cues, a lighter imaging head, longer battery life, and streamlined data entry. AI-MSI showed high usability across roles and centres, supporting routine use in clinics, wards, and theatres. As the first multicentre heuristic usability evaluation of AI-MSI in burns, the study provides implementation-focused evidence to guide training, pathway design, and targeted software and hardware refinements.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abdulla et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: