Usability and Acceptability of Electronic Immunization Registry Data Entry Workflows From the Health Care Worker Perspective in Siaya, Kenya (Part 3): Pre-Post Study.

acceptability digital health electronic immunization registry health care worker technology adoption usability workflow

Journal

JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
30 Mar 2023
Historique:
received: 23 05 2022
accepted: 07 12 2022
revised: 28 11 2022
medline: 31 3 2023
entrez: 30 3 2023
pubmed: 31 3 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Digital health tools such as electronic immunization registries (EIRs) have the potential to improve patient care and alleviate the challenges that arise from the use of paper-based clinic records for reporting. To address some of these challenges, the Kenya Ministry of Health and the International Training and Education Center for Health Kenya implemented an EIR system in 161 immunizing clinics in Siaya County between 2018 and 2019. The successful implementation of digital health tools depends on many factors, one of which is alignment between the technology and the context in which it is used. One important aspect of that implementation context is the perceptions of the health care workers (HCWs) using the EIR. This study aimed to evaluate HCWs' perceptions of the usability and acceptability of multiple clinic workflows using the new EIR. We performed a mixed methods pre-post study using semistructured interviews with HCWs at 6 facilities in Siaya County, Kenya. We interviewed HCWs at each facility 4 times: at baseline and once after the implementation of 3 different workflow modifications (n=24 interviews). The baseline state was dual data entry with paper records and the EIR. We then implemented 3 workflow modifications for 1 full day each: fully paperless data entry, preparation of an appointment diary before patient visits for the day, and a combination of the 2 workflows. We compared ratings and themes across interviews after each of the 4 workflows to understand the changes in the usability and acceptability of the EIR. HCWs considered the EIR clinic workflows to be usable and acceptable. Of the modified workflows, HCWs perceived the fully paperless workflow most favorably. In all workflows, HCWs' perceived benefits included ease of clinical decision-making using the EIR, reduced mental burden of data entry when using the EIR, and ease of identification of errors. Perceived barriers to the workflow included contextual challenges such as staffing shortages and lack of network connectivity, EIR platform challenges such as errors in saving records and missing fields, and workflow challenges such as the dual data entry burden of using paper and digital tools simultaneously. Fully paperless EIR implementation shows great promise from a workflow acceptability standpoint, contingent upon the presence of supporting contextual clinic factors and the resolution of system performance and design challenges. Rather than trying to identify a singular best workflow, future efforts should provide adequate flexibility for HCWs to implement the new system in their unique clinic context. Future EIR implementation stands to benefit from continued monitoring of EIR adoption acceptability during implementation, both for Siaya's program and for other efforts around the globe, as digital health interventions become more widely used.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Digital health tools such as electronic immunization registries (EIRs) have the potential to improve patient care and alleviate the challenges that arise from the use of paper-based clinic records for reporting. To address some of these challenges, the Kenya Ministry of Health and the International Training and Education Center for Health Kenya implemented an EIR system in 161 immunizing clinics in Siaya County between 2018 and 2019. The successful implementation of digital health tools depends on many factors, one of which is alignment between the technology and the context in which it is used. One important aspect of that implementation context is the perceptions of the health care workers (HCWs) using the EIR.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate HCWs' perceptions of the usability and acceptability of multiple clinic workflows using the new EIR.
METHODS METHODS
We performed a mixed methods pre-post study using semistructured interviews with HCWs at 6 facilities in Siaya County, Kenya. We interviewed HCWs at each facility 4 times: at baseline and once after the implementation of 3 different workflow modifications (n=24 interviews). The baseline state was dual data entry with paper records and the EIR. We then implemented 3 workflow modifications for 1 full day each: fully paperless data entry, preparation of an appointment diary before patient visits for the day, and a combination of the 2 workflows. We compared ratings and themes across interviews after each of the 4 workflows to understand the changes in the usability and acceptability of the EIR.
RESULTS RESULTS
HCWs considered the EIR clinic workflows to be usable and acceptable. Of the modified workflows, HCWs perceived the fully paperless workflow most favorably. In all workflows, HCWs' perceived benefits included ease of clinical decision-making using the EIR, reduced mental burden of data entry when using the EIR, and ease of identification of errors. Perceived barriers to the workflow included contextual challenges such as staffing shortages and lack of network connectivity, EIR platform challenges such as errors in saving records and missing fields, and workflow challenges such as the dual data entry burden of using paper and digital tools simultaneously.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Fully paperless EIR implementation shows great promise from a workflow acceptability standpoint, contingent upon the presence of supporting contextual clinic factors and the resolution of system performance and design challenges. Rather than trying to identify a singular best workflow, future efforts should provide adequate flexibility for HCWs to implement the new system in their unique clinic context. Future EIR implementation stands to benefit from continued monitoring of EIR adoption acceptability during implementation, both for Siaya's program and for other efforts around the globe, as digital health interventions become more widely used.

Identifiants

pubmed: 36995755
pii: v7i1e39383
doi: 10.2196/39383
pmc: PMC10131729
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

e39383

Informations de copyright

©Rachel Wittenauer, Samantha B Dolan, Anne Njoroge, Penina Onyango, George Owiso, Peter Rabinowitz, Nancy Puttkammer. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 30.03.2023.

Références

JMIR Form Res. 2023 Mar 16;7:e39777
pubmed: 36927606
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004 Mar-Apr;11(2):104-12
pubmed: 14633936
Mhealth. 2017 Jul 19;3:26
pubmed: 28828373
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2011;697:1-8
pubmed: 21120715
Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2019 Mar 15;43:e28
pubmed: 31093252
BMC Health Serv Res. 2017 Jan 26;17(1):88
pubmed: 28126032
Inf Technol Dev. 2019 Sep 29;26(3):477-505
pubmed: 32982007
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Feb 13;8(2):e16081
pubmed: 32053115
NPJ Digit Med. 2020 Aug 27;3:110
pubmed: 32904379
Vaccine. 2018 Dec 18;36(52):7923-7928
pubmed: 29983255
Biomed Instrum Technol. 2002 Mar-Apr;36(2):84-8
pubmed: 11938619
PLoS One. 2014 Aug 29;9(8):e103205
pubmed: 25170939
PLoS One. 2017 Nov 1;12(11):e0186744
pubmed: 29091935
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2006 Jan 09;6:3
pubmed: 16401336
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Mar 14;7:e39775
pubmed: 36917157
NPJ Digit Med. 2018 Sep 20;1:48
pubmed: 31304327
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Nov;131:103949
pubmed: 31561192
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 May;2(5):e251-2
pubmed: 25103158
J Biomed Inform. 2003 Feb-Apr;36(1-2):23-30
pubmed: 14552844

Auteurs

Rachel Wittenauer (R)

Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Samantha B Dolan (SB)

Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Anne Njoroge (A)

International Training and Education Center for Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Penina Onyango (P)

County Department of Health, Siaya County, Siaya, Kenya.

George Owiso (G)

International Training and Education Center for Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Peter Rabinowitz (P)

Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Nancy Puttkammer (N)

Department of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
International Training and Education Center for Health, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.

Classifications MeSH