Understanding the Digital Disruption of Health Care: An Ethnographic Study of Real-Time Multidisciplinary Clinical Behavior in a New Digital Hospital.
Journal
Applied clinical informatics
ISSN: 1869-0327
Titre abrégé: Appl Clin Inform
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101537732
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
entrez:
9
11
2022
pubmed:
10
11
2022
medline:
15
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Understanding electronic medical record (EMR) implementation in digital hospitals has focused on retrospective "work as imagined" experiences of multidisciplinary clinicians, rather than "work as done" behaviors. Our research question was "what is the behavior of multidisciplinary clinicians during the transition to a new digital hospital?" The aim of the study is to: (1) Observe clinical behavior of multidisciplinary clinicians in a new digital hospital using ethnography. (2) Develop a thematic framework of clinical behavior in a new digital hospital. The setting was the go-live of a greenfield 182-bed digital specialist public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Participants were multidisciplinary clinicians (allied health, nursing, medical, and pharmacy). Clinical ethnographic observations were conducted between March and April 2021 (approximately 1 month post-EMR implementation). Observers shadowed clinicians in real-time performing a diverse range of routine clinical activities and recorded any clinical behavior related to interaction with the digital hospital. Data were analyzed in two phases: (1) content analysis using machine learning (Leximancer v4.5); (2) researcher-led interpretation of the text analytics to generate contextual meaning and finalize themes. A total of 55 multidisciplinary clinicians (41.8% allied health, 23.6% nursing, 20% medical, 14.6% pharmacy) were observed across 58 hours and 99 individual patient encounters. Five themes were derived: (1) Workflows for clinical documentation; (2) Navigating a digital hospital; (3) Digital efficiencies; (4) Digital challenges; (5) Patient experience. There was no observed harm attributable to the digital transition. Clinicians primarily used blended digital and paper workflows to achieve clinical goals. The EMR was generally used seamlessly. New digital workflows affected clinical productivity and caused frustration. Digitization enabled multitasking, clinical opportunism, and benefits to patient safety; however, clinicians were hesitant to trust digital information. This study improves our real-time understanding of the digital disruption of health care and can guide clinicians, managers, and health services toward digital transformation strategies based upon "work as done."
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Understanding electronic medical record (EMR) implementation in digital hospitals has focused on retrospective "work as imagined" experiences of multidisciplinary clinicians, rather than "work as done" behaviors. Our research question was "what is the behavior of multidisciplinary clinicians during the transition to a new digital hospital?"
OBJECTIVES
The aim of the study is to: (1) Observe clinical behavior of multidisciplinary clinicians in a new digital hospital using ethnography. (2) Develop a thematic framework of clinical behavior in a new digital hospital.
METHODS
The setting was the go-live of a greenfield 182-bed digital specialist public hospital in Queensland, Australia. Participants were multidisciplinary clinicians (allied health, nursing, medical, and pharmacy). Clinical ethnographic observations were conducted between March and April 2021 (approximately 1 month post-EMR implementation). Observers shadowed clinicians in real-time performing a diverse range of routine clinical activities and recorded any clinical behavior related to interaction with the digital hospital. Data were analyzed in two phases: (1) content analysis using machine learning (Leximancer v4.5); (2) researcher-led interpretation of the text analytics to generate contextual meaning and finalize themes.
RESULTS
A total of 55 multidisciplinary clinicians (41.8% allied health, 23.6% nursing, 20% medical, 14.6% pharmacy) were observed across 58 hours and 99 individual patient encounters. Five themes were derived: (1) Workflows for clinical documentation; (2) Navigating a digital hospital; (3) Digital efficiencies; (4) Digital challenges; (5) Patient experience. There was no observed harm attributable to the digital transition. Clinicians primarily used blended digital and paper workflows to achieve clinical goals. The EMR was generally used seamlessly. New digital workflows affected clinical productivity and caused frustration. Digitization enabled multitasking, clinical opportunism, and benefits to patient safety; however, clinicians were hesitant to trust digital information.
CONCLUSION
This study improves our real-time understanding of the digital disruption of health care and can guide clinicians, managers, and health services toward digital transformation strategies based upon "work as done."
Identifiants
pubmed: 36351558
doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1758482
pmc: PMC9646403
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1079-1091Informations de copyright
The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None declared.
Références
Res Synth Methods. 2019 Sep;10(3):452-464
pubmed: 31125493
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Mar 5;21(1):200
pubmed: 33663508
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 4;22(6):e17519
pubmed: 32496196
NPJ Digit Med. 2022 Mar 8;5(1):29
pubmed: 35260765
Inform Health Soc Care. 2018 Dec;43(4):379-389
pubmed: 28920708
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Sep;42(5):568-578
pubmed: 29986809
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Sep;44(5):690-698
pubmed: 32907698
BMJ Open. 2020 Mar 18;10(3):e032921
pubmed: 32193259
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2019 Dec 21;16(1):135
pubmed: 31864372
Med Care. 2021 Jul 1;59(7):625-631
pubmed: 33797506
Appl Clin Inform. 2021 Jan;12(1):141-152
pubmed: 33657633
Appl Clin Inform. 2022 May;13(3):541-559
pubmed: 35649501
Nat Med. 2020 Aug;26(8):1183-1192
pubmed: 32770165
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Dec;26(12):1015-1021
pubmed: 28971880
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Sep;23(5):1001-6
pubmed: 26911809
PLoS One. 2016 Apr 19;11(4):e0153721
pubmed: 27093438
Appl Clin Inform. 2021 Oct;12(5):1135-1143
pubmed: 34852391
JMIR Form Res. 2021 Apr 8;5(4):e18764
pubmed: 33830061
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Sep;42(5):529-535
pubmed: 29081349
BMC Public Health. 2020 Aug 1;20(1):1193
pubmed: 32738884
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Dec;44(6):965-972
pubmed: 33031717
Aust Health Rev. 2020 Sep;44(5):677-689
pubmed: 31315788
Ann Fam Med. 2014 Nov-Dec;12(6):573-6
pubmed: 25384822
Crit Care. 2008;12(6):R148
pubmed: 19025662
Acad Med. 2014 Sep;89(9):1245-51
pubmed: 24979285
Nurs Leadersh (Tor Ont). 2019 May;32(SP):72-85
pubmed: 31099748
Aust Health Rev. 2018 Jun;42(3):294-298
pubmed: 28514640
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Nov 01;24(6):1142-1148
pubmed: 29016973