The Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of a Web-Based Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration Platform in the Hospital Setting: Interview Study With Health Care Providers.
care
clinician
collaboration
communication
communication and collaboration
complex
design
education
health information
health information technology
hospital
lesson
members
professional
qualitative method
support
team
teamwork
technology
technology acceptance model
Journal
JMIR human factors
ISSN: 2292-9495
Titre abrégé: JMIR Hum Factors
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101666561
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jan 2023
23 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
27
04
2022
accepted:
12
09
2022
revised:
12
09
2022
entrez:
23
1
2023
pubmed:
24
1
2023
medline:
24
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Hospitalized patients with complex care needs require an interprofessional team of health professionals working together to support their care in hospitals and during discharge planning. However, interprofessional communication and collaboration in inpatient settings are often fragmented and inefficient, leading to poor patient outcomes and provider frustration. Health information technology can potentially help improve team communication and collaboration; however, to date, evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. There are also concerns that current implementations might further fragment communication and increase the clinician burden without proven benefits. In this study, we aimed to generate transferrable lessons for future designers of health information technology tools that facilitate team communication and collaboration. A secondary analysis of the qualitative component of the mixed methods evaluation was performed. The electronic communication and collaboration platform was implemented in 2 general internal medicine wards in a large community teaching hospital in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Fifteen inpatient clinicians in those wards, including nurses, physicians, and allied health care providers, were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews about their experience with a co-designed electronic communication and collaboration tool. Data were analyzed using the Technology Acceptance Model, and themes related to the constructs of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) were identified. A secondary analysis guided by the Technology Acceptance Model highlighted important points. Intuitive design precluded training as a barrier to use, but lack of training may hinder participants' PEOU if features designed for efficiency are not discovered by users. Organized information was found to be useful for creating a comprehensive clinical picture of each patient and facilitating improved handovers. However, information needs to be both comprehensive and succinct, and information overload may negatively impact PEOU. The mixed paper and electronic practice environment also negatively impacted PEOU owing to unavoidable double documentation and the need for printing. Participants perceived the tool to be useful as it improved efficiency in information retrieval and documentation, improved the handover process, afforded another mode of communication when face-to-face communication was impractical, and improved shared awareness. The PU of this tool depends on its optimal use by all team members. Electronic tools can support communication and collaboration among interprofessional teams caring for patients with complex needs. There are transferable lessons learned that can improve the PU and PEOU of future systems.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Hospitalized patients with complex care needs require an interprofessional team of health professionals working together to support their care in hospitals and during discharge planning. However, interprofessional communication and collaboration in inpatient settings are often fragmented and inefficient, leading to poor patient outcomes and provider frustration. Health information technology can potentially help improve team communication and collaboration; however, to date, evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. There are also concerns that current implementations might further fragment communication and increase the clinician burden without proven benefits.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
In this study, we aimed to generate transferrable lessons for future designers of health information technology tools that facilitate team communication and collaboration.
METHODS
METHODS
A secondary analysis of the qualitative component of the mixed methods evaluation was performed. The electronic communication and collaboration platform was implemented in 2 general internal medicine wards in a large community teaching hospital in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Fifteen inpatient clinicians in those wards, including nurses, physicians, and allied health care providers, were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews about their experience with a co-designed electronic communication and collaboration tool. Data were analyzed using the Technology Acceptance Model, and themes related to the constructs of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) were identified.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A secondary analysis guided by the Technology Acceptance Model highlighted important points. Intuitive design precluded training as a barrier to use, but lack of training may hinder participants' PEOU if features designed for efficiency are not discovered by users. Organized information was found to be useful for creating a comprehensive clinical picture of each patient and facilitating improved handovers. However, information needs to be both comprehensive and succinct, and information overload may negatively impact PEOU. The mixed paper and electronic practice environment also negatively impacted PEOU owing to unavoidable double documentation and the need for printing. Participants perceived the tool to be useful as it improved efficiency in information retrieval and documentation, improved the handover process, afforded another mode of communication when face-to-face communication was impractical, and improved shared awareness. The PU of this tool depends on its optimal use by all team members.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Electronic tools can support communication and collaboration among interprofessional teams caring for patients with complex needs. There are transferable lessons learned that can improve the PU and PEOU of future systems.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36689261
pii: v10i1e39051
doi: 10.2196/39051
pmc: PMC9947815
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e39051Informations de copyright
©Jason Xin Nie, Christine Heidebrecht, Andrea Zettler, Jacklyn Pearce, Rafael Cunha, Sherman Quan, Elizabeth Mansfield, Terence Tang. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 23.01.2023.
Références
Health Informatics J. 2012 Jun;18(2):124-34
pubmed: 22733680
J Biomed Inform. 2015 Oct;57:263-77
pubmed: 26264406
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014 Jun;40(6):253-62
pubmed: 25016673
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009 Feb;53(2):143-51
pubmed: 19032571
J Med Internet Res. 2011 Aug 29;13(3):e59
pubmed: 21875849
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000 May-Jun;7(3):277-86
pubmed: 10833164
Inform Health Soc Care. 2018 Dec;43(4):379-389
pubmed: 28920708
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Apr 1;24(e1):e178-e184
pubmed: 27539201
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Nov 26;8(11):e18774
pubmed: 33242012
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Jul;127:35-42
pubmed: 31128830
J Hosp Med. 2014 Sep;9(9):573-8
pubmed: 25110991
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007 Jan;33(1):34-47
pubmed: 17283940
Nurse Educ Pract. 2016 Jul;19:36-40
pubmed: 27428690
J Grad Med Educ. 2015 Jun;7(2):174-80
pubmed: 26221430
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Aug;20(4):486-97
pubmed: 24902627
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2010 Nov 13;2010:407-11
pubmed: 21347010
Saudi Med J. 2017 Dec;38(12):1173-1180
pubmed: 29209664
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011 Jun;37(6):274-84
pubmed: 21706987
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec 23;19(1):992
pubmed: 31870370
Qual Soc Work. 2019 Jan;18(1):81-97
pubmed: 30906228
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Aug 2;2(8):e199609
pubmed: 31418810
Appl Clin Inform. 2016 Dec 21;7(4):1182-1201
pubmed: 27999841
Acad Med. 2015 Jan;90(1):25-9
pubmed: 25162617
Int J Med Inform. 2012 Nov;81(11):723-32
pubmed: 22727613
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug 1;177(8):1220-1221
pubmed: 28628698
Lancet Respir Med. 2020 Mar;8(3):243-244
pubmed: 32135094
BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Dec;22(12):981-3
pubmed: 23873757
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Jun;19(3):195-9
pubmed: 20430931
JMIR Hum Factors. 2018 Jan 09;5(1):e2
pubmed: 29317386
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015 Feb 12;8:83-9
pubmed: 25709468
J Comorb. 2012 Oct 10;2:1-9
pubmed: 29090137
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Dec;100:103315
pubmed: 31629923
J Hosp Med. 2013 Aug;8(8):456-63
pubmed: 23169534
Acad Med. 2004 Feb;79(2):186-94
pubmed: 14744724
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Apr 1;26(4):339-355
pubmed: 30689893
Int J Med Inform. 2018 Feb;110:90-97
pubmed: 29331258
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Aug 1;177(8):1218-1220
pubmed: 28628695
J Health Organ Manag. 2018 Sep 17;32(6):825-840
pubmed: 30299223