DESIGN A POSTER PRESENTATION

MONIQUE BOUVIER, PHD, RN, PNP-BC

RESEARCH SCIENTIST

STANFORD HEALTH CARE

DISSEMINATION WEBINAR SERIES

RECORDING AVAILABLE REGISTER NOWTODAY’S WEBINAR

REGISTER FOR HEALTHCARE CON

HEALTHCARE CON PRECONFERENCE

PURPOSE OF THE POSTER

• Inform people about your project visually

• Creatively showcase all the hard work you have done

• Start a conversation

https://www.neurologytimes.com/blogs/drugs-and-creativity-fact-or-fiction

https://www.neurologytimes.com/blogs/drugs-and-creativity-fact-or-fiction

MOVIE POSTERS

YOU HAVE 5 SECONDS

STEPS TO POSTER MAKING

• Audience

• Content planning

• Layout development

• System for development

• Focus on the details

• Printing considerations

• Practice speaking to it

STEP 1: WHO IS YOUR AUDIENCE?

VS

STEP 2: PLANNING YOUR CONTENT

• What is the main take away from your project? • What is interesting about your project?• Think about the steps you took to discover the above information

• How can you visually display that?

• Turn words into pictures

• Keep it simple • Aim for 1000 words or less

STEP 3: LAYOUT • Read conference poster presentation instructions to determine layout

• Sketch it out• White space is good to have

• Figure out the flow to best convey your project’s key messages• Use your abstract as a guide

• Most common type of format is the column format

Photo credit: https://ebiinterfaces.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/designing-our-vizbi-2016-conference-poster/

https://ebiinterfaces.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/designing-our-vizbi-2016-conference-poster/

STEP 3: LAYOUT CONT.

Headings

• Research: Introduction, Aim/ Purpose, Methods, Results, Conclusion/ Discussion • Other headings: Nursing implications, Future Direction, Theoretical Framework, Limitations

• Evidence-Based Practice: Introduction, Objectives, Methods/ Process of Implementation, Results, Implications to Practice/ Conclusions

• Other headings: Recommendations, EBP Model, Limitations

• Quality Improvement: Introduction, Statement of Problem, Methodology/ Implementation, Results, Outcomes

• Other headings: Education, Strategy, Limitations, Discussion, Case Description

• Works in Progress: Introduction, Background, Problem, Methodology- further delineate, Anticipated Findings

POSTER PRESENTATION

Author Names and Titles HereDepartment Affiliations Here, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California

Insert Poster Title Here

Introduction

• Check with conference organizers for the specifications for poster size and orientation (e.g., maximum poster size; landscape, portrait, or square).

• The page size of this poster template is 39” x 20” landscape format. Print this poster at 200%. The final size will be 78” x 40.”

•Use Helvetica for title and body text.

• This slide is half the size of the final poster. Therefore 22 point font will print at 44 points.

Methods

Conclusion

Results

Cited Literature• One Potato• Two Potato• Three Potato• Four

Acknowledgments• One Potato• Two Potato• Three Potato• Four

Author Names and Titles Here

Department Affiliations Here, Stanford Health Care, Stanford, California

Insert Poster Title Here

Introduction

Check with conference organizers for the specifications for poster size and orientation (e.g., maximum poster size; landscape, portrait, or square).

The page size of this poster template is 39” x 20” landscape format. Print this poster at 200%. The final size will be 78” x 40.”

Use Helvetica for title and body text.

This slide is half the size of the final poster. Therefore 22 point font will print at 44 points.

Methods

Conclusion

Results

Cited Literature

One Potato

Two Potato

Three Potato

Four

Acknowledgments

One Potato

Two Potato

Three Potato

Four

• Keep in bullet form

• Provide a high-level overview of activities

• Only those relevant to the attendee to understand what you have undertaken

PRINTING• Slide is 24W x 40H• Check your conference information and adjust as

needed

Short Pertinent Title of StudyAuthors Listed with note to affiliation below: E.V. Smith1, L.Z. Bear2

Only qualifying authors should be listed [see link for guidance] http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

RESULTS

METHODS

OBJECTIVE

BACKGROUND• Introductory statement about phenomenon• Why this is important to clinicians• What is known about this problem• What is the gap in knowledge

Clear statement on what you set out to achieve

Table 1. Keep it relevant and progress the reader through your presentation.

RESULTS

1Patient Care Services, Stanford Health Care; 2Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA,

CONCLUSION• Primary and secondary findings• Why this is important• Implications and recommendations for clinical practice.• Be sure conclusion addresses your objective!

References:Funded by disclosure1. References in a format that is acceptable for the scientific society. 2. Guy, Great (2022). How to excel at poster presentations. Journal of Unicorns. 2014 2(4): 357-357.

Acknowledgments:K li it d t l th i t ib t t ti th hi

• Start with describing your sample

• Ensure results are addressing your objective

• Do not interpret results in this section

• Provide test and confidence intervals where necessary

Figure 1. Depict results visually and provide enough data for interpretation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2022

Fictional Quality Measure

Patients HAC

Results are King - Use Smart Graphics

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Univariate Multivariate

Unstandardized b 95% CI Unstandardized Standardized b 95% CI

Variable Operation b Coefficient Lower Upper P Value b Coefficient B Coefficient Lower Upper P Value

Age 60+y v

STEP 4: SYSTEM TO USE • Read what size the poster needs to be

• HCC: 36” (width) by 42” (height)

• Design -> Slide Size -> Custom Slide size -> insert dimensions

STEP 5: THE DETAILS

• Keep title short: no more than 2 lines • Use upper and lower case letters

• Boxes vs no boxes • Regardless keep information lined up (use grid lines)

• Color• Keep a color scheme (limit 2-3 colors)

• Do not use an image in the background

• Black on white easiest to read

STEP 5: THE DETAILS CONT.

• Bulleted text or 1-2 sentence paragraphs • Fonts

• Use serif fonts not script or comic sans or other fonts we are not used to reading • Want to be able to read from 5 feet away

• Font size guidelines (minimums):• Title- 90 pt

• Authors- 48 pt

• Headings- 36 pt

• Text- 24 pt

• Captions- 18 pt

STEP 5: THE DETAILS CONT.

• Images• High quality necessary

• Do not use unnecessary pictures

• Caption all charts and graphs

• Keep images simple

• Branding• Conference

• Institutional

• Company

• Grant

RCT Evaluating Optimal Patient Turning for Reducing Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers: Preliminary Results of the LS-HAPU Study.

Pickham, D., Ballew, B., Duhon, P., Mayer, B.

• Hospital Acquired Pressure Injuries (HAPI) are insidious multi-factorial complications arising from periods of inactivity

• Patient’s with HAPI have

• 3x longer LOS

• 4x increase in hospital mortality

• 503,000 related hospitalizations per year

• Costs = $11 billion/year

• Two Cochrane reviews address benefits of repositioning

• “repositioning is an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment…(there are a) lack of robust evaluations of frequency and position…(and therefore) great uncertainty remains”.

Conduct pragmatic RCT investigating the effect of optimal patient care procedures (repositioning every 2 hours with at least 15 minutes of tissue depressurization), supported by use a patient sensor and novel quantitative measures, in preventing HAPI in acutely ill subjects

An investigator-initiated pragmatic, single site, open label, two arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial with one-to-one group allocation

Treatment: Providing optimal care, supported by data derived from a wearable patient sensor (Leaf Healthcare, Inc., Pleasanton, CA) (simulated user dashboard shown)

Control: Providing usual care, without the aid of data, initiated by usual nursing practice

• Adults >18 years• Admitted to an ICU• No adhesive sensitivity/allergies

• Single site, Academic Medical Center• Unit A – 25 bed post cardiothoracic surgery• Unit B – 33 bed medical, surgical, trauma

Assessed for eligibility (n=1564)

Excluded (n=237) - Documented (n=49) - Not Documented (n=202)

Randomized (n=1313 )

Enrollment

Allocated to control (n=653) - Received allocated intervention (n=571) - Did not receive allocated intervention (n=82) - Due to:

No data n=22Misallocation n=54Multiple group assignment n=1

Allocated to treatment (n=660) - Received allocated intervention (n=633) - Did not receive allocated intervention (n=27) - Due to:

No data n=22Misallocation n=4Multiple group assignment n=1

Analyzed (n=555) - Added to analysis (n=2, crossover) - Excluded from analysis (n=18)

- Less than 2hrs monitoring time

Analyzed (n=671) - Added to analysis (n=49, crossover) - Excluded from analysis (n=11)

-Less than 2hrs monitoring time

Allocation

AnalysisN=1226

Wearable Patient Sensor Communication Network

Location of Patient Monitoring Sensor

Intervention group provided care with the aid of monitoring dashboard

A

Arrival

Medical

Surgical

T

C

T

C

B

Medical

Surgical

T

C

T

C

Treatment

Control

Characteristics Control Treatment Total Patient DemographicsMale, No./Total No. (%) 302/555 (54.4) 373/671 (55.6) 675/1226 (55.1)Age, mean (SD), yr 60.1 (17.9) 59.8 (16.9) 60 (17.3)Race, No./Total No. (%)

White 300/555 (54.1) 361/671 (53.8) 661/1226 (53.9)Black or African American 35/555 (6.3) 31/671 (4.6) 66/1226 (5.4)Asian 87/555 (15.7) 95/671 (14.2) 182/1226 (14.8)

Ethnicity, No./Total No. (%)Hispanic/Latino 82/555 (14.8) 113/671 (16.8) 195/1226 (15.9)Non-Hispanic/Latino 458/555 (82.5) 538/671 (80.2) 996/1226 (81.2)

Body Mass Index, mean (SD) 23.3 (5.7) 23.6 (5.9) 23.5 (5.8)Clinical Indices

Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean (SD) 3.7 (3.3) 3.8 (3.3) 3.8 (3.3)Apache II Score, mean (SD) 13 (6.9) 13.6 (7.0) 13.4 (6.9)Nursing Acuity Index, mean (SD) 64.9 (30.3) 65.1 (30.3) 65 (30.3)Glasgow Coma Scale, mean (SD) 12.5 (3.9) 12.2 (4) 12.4 (4)ASA Risk Score at 1st Surgery, mean (SD) 3.3 (0.7) 3.2 (0.7) 3.2 (0.7)

Temperature, mean (SD), F° 96.7 (5.4 96.7 (4.9) 96.7 (5.2)Ventilator Use Smoking History, mean (SD), yr 20.6 (15.2) 20.7 (14.7) 20.7 (14.9)Diabetes, No./Total No. (%) 127/555 (22.9) 151/671 (22.5) 278/1226 (22.7)Laboratory Blood Values

White Blood Cell, mean (SD), k/Ul ^ 11.2 (6) 12 (10.7) 11.6 (8.9)Glucose, mean (SD), mg/dL ^ 133.3 (55.6) 138.8 (66.3) 136.3 (61.7)Hemoglobin, mean (SD), mg/dL ^ 12.1 (2.2) 12 (2.3) 12 (2.2)Albumin, mean (SD), ^ 3.1 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7) 3.1 (0.7)Lactate, mean (SD), * 3.9 (3) 4.1 (3.2) 4 (3)

Drugs AdministeredAnticoagulants, No./Total No. (%) 400/555 (72.1) 485/671 (72.3) 885/1226 (72.2)Antibiotic, No./Total No. (%) 409/555 (73.7) 501/671 (74.7) 910/1226 (74.2)Insulin, No./Total No. (%) 294/555 (53) 349/671 (52) 643/1226 (52.4)Sedative, No./Total No. (%) 455/555 (82) 539/671 (80.3) 994/1226 (81.1)Steroid, No./Total No. (%) 250/555 (45) 282/671 (42) 532/1226 (43.4)Vasopressor, No./Total No. (%) 511/555 (91.1) 617/671 (92) 1128/1226 (92)

ICU MonitoringUnit A, No./Total No. (%) 190/555 (34.2) 237/671 (35.2) 427/1226 (34.8)Type of Admission No./total No. (%)

Medical 208/555 (37) 247/671 (37) 455/1226 (37)Surgery 347/555 (63) 423/671 (63) 770/1226 (63)

Monitoring Time, mean (SD), hours 80.9 (132.6) 86.6 (127) 84 (129.5)

*Treatment and control groups are equivalent for all variables (p>0.05). ^On day 1 of admission to ICU. *Highest during hospital admission. °Maximum temperature during ICU stay.

- Compliance to turning increased by approximately 40% in the treatment group

- Significant differences exist in compliance across nursing shifts

- 5 fold difference in the incidence of HAPI between treatment and control groups.

This study found a significant difference in the incidence of HAPI between groups. Study analyses is ongoing to further validate these findings.

Trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02533726.

This study is co-funded by Stanford Health Care and Leaf Healthcare, Inc. Competing Interests: Leaf Healthcare, Inc. was co-founded by Barrett Larson MD, a physician employed at Stanford University. Leaf Healthcare, Inc. is a co-sponsor of this study and provides monitoring hardware, proprietary software and technical support.

Percentage of time in patient position for treatment (green) and control groups

Bullet PointsHeadings

Graphs and pictures are preferred

RCT Evaluating Optimal Patient Turning for Reducing Hospital Acquired Pressure Ulcers: Preliminary Results of the LS-HAPU Study.

Pickham, D., Ballew, B., Duhon, P., Mayer, B.

Introduction

Aim

Study Design

Hospital Acquired Pressure Injuries (HAPI) are insidious multi-factorial complications arising from periods of inactivity

Patient’s with HAPI have

3x longer LOS

4x increase in hospital mortality

503,000 related hospitalizations per year

Costs = $11 billion/year

Two Cochrane reviews address benefits of repositioning

“repositioning is an integral component of pressure ulcer prevention and treatment…(there are a) lack of robust evaluations of frequency and position…(and therefore) great uncertainty remains”.

Conduct pragmatic RCT investigating the effect of optimal patient care procedures (repositioning every 2 hours with at least 15 minutes of tissue depressurization), supported by use a patient sensor and novel quantitative measures, in preventing HAPI in acutely ill subjects

An investigator-initiated pragmatic, single site, open label, two arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial with one-to-one group allocation

Treatment: Providing optimal care, supported by data derived from a wearable patient sensor (Leaf Healthcare, Inc., Pleasanton, CA) (simulated user dashboard shown)

Control: Providing usual care, without the aid of data, initiated by usual nursing practice

Participants

Setting

Adults >18 years

Admitted to an ICU

No adhesive sensitivity/allergies

Single site, Academic Medical Center

Unit A – 25 bed post cardiothoracic surgery

Unit B – 33 bed medical, surgical, trauma

Intervention

Wearable Patient Sensor Communication Network

Location of Patient Monitoring Sensor

Intervention group provided care with the aid of monitoring dashboard

Randomization

Results – Enrollment

Baseline Demographic and Clinical Data

CharacteristicsControl Treatment Total

Patient Demographics   

Male, No./Total No. (%)302/555 (54.4)373/671 (55.6)675/1226 (55.1)

Age, mean (SD), yr60.1 (17.9)59.8 (16.9)60 (17.3)

Race, No./Total No. (%)   

White300/555 (54.1)361/671 (53.8)661/1226 (53.9)

Black or African American35/555 (6.3)31/671 (4.6)66/1226 (5.4)

Asian87/555 (15.7)95/671 (14.2)182/1226 (14.8)

Ethnicity, No./Total No. (%)   

Hispanic/Latino82/555 (14.8)113/671 (16.8)195/1226 (15.9)

Non-Hispanic/Latino 458/555 (82.5)538/671 (80.2)996/1226 (81.2)

Body Mass Index, mean (SD)23.3 (5.7)23.6 (5.9)23.5 (5.8)

Clinical Indices   

Charlson Comorbidity Index, mean (SD)3.7 (3.3)3.8 (3.3)3.8 (3.3)

Apache II Score, mean (SD)13 (6.9)13.6 (7.0)13.4 (6.9)

Nursing Acuity Index, mean (SD)64.9 (30.3)65.1 (30.3)65 (30.3)

Glasgow Coma Scale, mean (SD)12.5 (3.9)12.2 (4)12.4 (4)

ASA Risk Score at 1st Surgery, mean (SD)3.3 (0.7)3.2 (0.7)3.2 (0.7)

Temperature, mean (SD), F96.7 (5.496.7 (4.9)96.7 (5.2)

Ventilator Use    

Smoking History, mean (SD), yr20.6 (15.2)20.7 (14.7)20.7 (14.9)

Diabetes, No./Total No. (%)127/555 (22.9)151/671 (22.5)278/1226 (22.7)

Laboratory Blood Values   

White Blood Cell, mean (SD), k/Ul ^11.2 (6)12 (10.7)11.6 (8.9)

Glucose, mean (SD), mg/dL ^133.3 (55.6)138.8 (66.3)136.3 (61.7)

Hemoglobin, mean (SD), mg/dL ^ 12.1 (2.2)12 (2.3)12 (2.2)

Albumin, mean (SD), ^3.1 (0.7)3.1 (0.7)3.1 (0.7)

Lactate, mean (SD), *3.9 (3)4.1 (3.2)4 (3)

Drugs Administered   

Anticoagulants, No./Total No. (%)400/555 (72.1)485/671 (72.3)885/1226 (72.2)

Antibiotic, No./Total No. (%)409/555 (73.7)501/671 (74.7)910/1226 (74.2)

Insulin, No./Total No. (%)294/555 (53)349/671 (52)643/1226 (52.4)

Sedative, No./Total No. (%) 455/555 (82)539/671 (80.3)994/1226 (81.1)

Steroid, No./Total No. (%)250/555 (45)282/671 (42)532/1226 (43.4)

Vasopressor, No./Total No. (%)511/555 (91.1)617/671 (92)1128/1226 (92)

ICU Monitoring   

Unit A, No./Total No. (%)190/555 (34.2)237/671 (35.2)427/1226 (34.8)

Type of Admission No./total No. (%)   

Medical 208/555 (37)247/671 (37)455/1226 (37)

Surgery347/555 (63)423/671 (63)770/1226 (63)

Monitoring Time, mean (SD), hours80.9 (132.6)86.6 (127)84 (129.5)

    

*Treatment and control groups are equivalent for all variables (p>0.05). ^On day 1 of admission to ICU. *Highest during hospital admission. Maximum temperature during ICU stay.

Patient Positioning

Turning Compliance

HAPI Incidence

Conclusions

Compliance to turning increased by approximately 40% in the treatment group

Significant differences exist in compliance across nursing shifts

5 fold difference in the incidence of HAPI between treatment and control groups.

This study found a significant difference in the incidence of HAPI between groups. Study analyses is ongoing to further validate these findings.

Trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02533726.

This study is co-funded by Stanford Health Care and Leaf Healthcare, Inc.

Competing Interests: Leaf Healthcare, Inc. was co-founded by Barrett Larson MD, a physician employed at Stanford University. Leaf Healthcare, Inc. is a co-sponsor of this study and provides monitoring hardware, proprietary software and technical support.

Disclosures

Percentage of time in patient position for treatment (green) and control groups

A

Arrival

Medical

Surgical

T

C

T

C

B

Medical

Surgical

T

C

T

C

Treatment

Control

Assessed for eligibility (n=1564)

Excluded (n=237)

-Documented (n=49)

-Not Documented (n=202)

Randomized (n=1313 )

Enrollment

Allocated to control (n=653)

-Received allocated intervention (n=571)

-Did not receive allocated intervention (n=82)

-Due to:

No data n=22

Misallocation n=54

Multiple group assignment n=1

Allocated to treatment (n=660)

-Received allocated intervention (n=633)

-Did not receive allocated intervention (n=27)

-Due to:

No data n=22

Misallocation n=4

Multiple group assignment n=1

Analyzed (n=555)

-Added to analysis (n=2, crossover)

-Excluded from analysis (n=18)

-Less than 2hrs monitoring time

Analyzed (n=671)

-Added to analysis (n=49, crossover)

-Excluded from analysis (n=11)

-Less than 2hrs monitoring time

Allocation

Analysis

N=1226

Pleasing from a distance

Acknowledge all authors/institutions

Avoid blocked text

Pay attention to branding

STEP 6: PRINTING AND ADDITIONAL MATERIALS

• Save slide in .pdf format before printing

• Cloth vs paper

• Print slide fitting it to one page to confirm the layout

• Handouts are a nice touch

• Be creative with how you are displaying

STEP 7: PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE

Speed dating vs poster presentation

EVOLVING POSTER PRESENTATIONS

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/24/theres-movement-better-scientific-posters-are-they-really-better

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/06/24/theres-movement-better-scientific-posters-are-they-really-better

PROOF-READING/ EDITING A NECESSITY!

THANKS!

• Monique Bouvier• mbouvier@stanfordhealthcare.org• research@stanfordhealthcare.org

mailto:mbouvier@stanfordhealthcare.org

Design a Poster presentationDissemination webinar series Register for healthcare conHealthcare con preconference Purpose of the poster Movie postersYou have 5 seconds Slide Number 8Steps to Poster making Step 1: Who is your audience?Step 2: Planning your contentStep 3: Layout Step 3: Layout cont.Poster Presentation Slide Number 15Step 4: System to use Step 5: The detailsStep 5: The details cont. Step 5: The Details cont. Slide Number 20Slide Number 21Step 6: Printing and additional materialsStep 7: practice practice practice Evolving poster presentations Proof-reading/ Editing Thanks!