Unveiling the heterogeneous utilisation of the same digital patient management platform: case studies in primary healthcare in Sweden.
Case Studies
Digital Patient Management
Healthcare Professionals’ Perspectives
Implementation
Primary Healthcare
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Jul 2024
22 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
01
12
2023
accepted:
08
07
2024
medline:
23
7
2024
pubmed:
23
7
2024
entrez:
22
7
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The utilisation of digital technology in primary healthcare, particularly digital patient management platforms, has gained prominence, notably due to the global pandemic. These platforms are positioned as substitutes for face-to-face consultations and telephone triage. They are seen as a potential solution to the escalating costs associated with an aging population, increasing chronic conditions, and a shrinking healthcare workforce. However, a significant knowledge gap exists concerning the practical aspects of their implementation and their effect on the utilisation of digital patient management in primary healthcare. This study addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of three case studies involving the implementation of a specific digital patient management platform. Over a period of three years, we examine how the practicalities of implementation shape the adoption and utilisation of a digital patient management platform in three different clinics. Our findings revealed that differences in implementation strategies directly influenced variations in utilisation. The successful utilisation of the platform was achieved through a bottom-up decision-making process that involved the employees of the primary healthcare clinics. Onsite training, close collaboration with the eHealth provider, and a structured patient onboarding process played crucial roles in this utilisation. In contrast, a top-down approach at two of the primary healthcare clinics led to limited utilisation of the platform into daily workflows. Furthermore, making the platform a part of everyday work meant putting accessibility, by working as a team of physicians, at the forefront of continuity of care, with patients being managed by their designated physician. Additionally, it was observed that digital patient management proved most effective for addressing simple patient issues such as skin rashes, rather than complex cases, and did not reduce the demand for phone triage. Only one of the three clinics studied effectively integrated digital patient management into its daily operations, and did so by aligning objectives among management and all categories of healthcare professionals, employing a bottom-up decision-making process, collaborating with the eHealth service provider for regular platform adjustments to clinic needs, and implementing active patient onboarding. This sociotechnical integration resulted in high platform utilisation. In contrast, the other two clinics faced challenges due to incoherent objectives among diverse healthcare professional employees and top management, a top-down decision-making approach during implementation, limited collaboration with the eHealth service provider, and passive patient onboarding. The findings indicate that these factors negatively affected utilisation and led to low platform adoption as well as disrupted the sociotechnical balance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The utilisation of digital technology in primary healthcare, particularly digital patient management platforms, has gained prominence, notably due to the global pandemic. These platforms are positioned as substitutes for face-to-face consultations and telephone triage. They are seen as a potential solution to the escalating costs associated with an aging population, increasing chronic conditions, and a shrinking healthcare workforce. However, a significant knowledge gap exists concerning the practical aspects of their implementation and their effect on the utilisation of digital patient management in primary healthcare.
METHODS
METHODS
This study addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of three case studies involving the implementation of a specific digital patient management platform. Over a period of three years, we examine how the practicalities of implementation shape the adoption and utilisation of a digital patient management platform in three different clinics.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our findings revealed that differences in implementation strategies directly influenced variations in utilisation. The successful utilisation of the platform was achieved through a bottom-up decision-making process that involved the employees of the primary healthcare clinics. Onsite training, close collaboration with the eHealth provider, and a structured patient onboarding process played crucial roles in this utilisation. In contrast, a top-down approach at two of the primary healthcare clinics led to limited utilisation of the platform into daily workflows. Furthermore, making the platform a part of everyday work meant putting accessibility, by working as a team of physicians, at the forefront of continuity of care, with patients being managed by their designated physician. Additionally, it was observed that digital patient management proved most effective for addressing simple patient issues such as skin rashes, rather than complex cases, and did not reduce the demand for phone triage.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Only one of the three clinics studied effectively integrated digital patient management into its daily operations, and did so by aligning objectives among management and all categories of healthcare professionals, employing a bottom-up decision-making process, collaborating with the eHealth service provider for regular platform adjustments to clinic needs, and implementing active patient onboarding. This sociotechnical integration resulted in high platform utilisation. In contrast, the other two clinics faced challenges due to incoherent objectives among diverse healthcare professional employees and top management, a top-down decision-making approach during implementation, limited collaboration with the eHealth service provider, and passive patient onboarding. The findings indicate that these factors negatively affected utilisation and led to low platform adoption as well as disrupted the sociotechnical balance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39039575
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-11287-3
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-11287-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
831Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Babaei N, Zamanzadeh V, Valizadeh L, Lotfi M, Samad-Soltani T, Kousha A, Avazeh M. A scoping review of virtual care in the health system: infrastructures, barriers, and facilitators. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2023;42(2):69–97.
doi: 10.1080/01621424.2023.2166888
pubmed: 36635987
Jasanoff S, Kim S-H. Dreamscapes of modernity. Sociotechnical Imaginaries Fabrication Power Chic, 2015.
Villumsen S, Faxvaag A, Nøhr C. Development and progression in Danish eHealth policies: towards evidence-based policy making. MEDINFO 2019: Health and Wellbeing e-Networks for all. IOS; 2019. pp. 1075–9.
Wadhwa M. National eHealth Authority (NeHA), 2020.
Warth LL, Dyb K. eHealth initiatives; the relationship between project work and institutional practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):1–12.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4346-0
Andargoli AE. e-Health in Australia: a synthesis of thirty years of e-Health initiatives. Telematics Inform. 2021;56:101478.
doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2020.101478
Socialdepartementet. Nationell IT-strategi för vård och omsorg [National IT strategy for health- and social care], Socialdepartementet, ed., 2006.
Socialdepartementet. Nationell eHälsa – strategin för tillgänglig och säker information inom vård och omsorg, Socialdepartementet, ed., 2010.
o. SK, Socialdepartementet L. Vision e-hälsa 2025 – gemensamma utgångspunkter för digitalisering i socialtjänst och hälso- och sjukvård, Socialdepartementet, ed., 2016.
Hellberg S, Johansson P. eHealth strategies and platforms–the issue of health equity in Sweden. Health Policy Technol. 2017;6(1):26–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2016.09.002
Tortorella GL, Fogliatto FS, Espôsto KF, Vergara AMC, Vassolo R, Mendoza DT, Narayanamurthy G. Effects of contingencies on healthcare 4.0 technologies adoption and barriers in emerging economies. Technol Forecast Soc Chang. 2020;156:120048.
doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120048
Chandra M, Kumar K, Thakur P, Chattopadhyaya S, Alam F, Kumar S. Digital technologies, healthcare and COVID-19: insights from developing and emerging nations. Health Technol. 2022;12(2):547–68.
doi: 10.1007/s12553-022-00650-1
Gottliebsen K, Petersson G. Limited evidence of benefits of patient operated intelligent primary care triage tools: findings of a literature review. BMJ Health care Inf, 27, 1, 2020.
Rodgers M, Raine GA, Thomas S, Harden M, Eastwood AJ. Informing NHS policy in’digital-first primary care’: a rapid evidence synthesis. Health Serv Delivery Res, pp. 1–154, 2019.
Kaminsky E, Röing M, Björkman A, Holmström IK. Telephone nursing in Sweden: a narrative literature review. Nurs Health Sci. 2017;19(3):278–86.
doi: 10.1111/nhs.12349
pubmed: 28618087
Frennert S, Erlingsdóttir G, Muhic M, Rydenfält C, Milos Nymberg V, Ekman B. It increases my ability to influence my ways of working’: a qualitative study on digitally mediated patient management in primary healthcare. Scand J Caring Sci. 2023;37(1):88–105.
doi: 10.1111/scs.13099
pubmed: 35833314
Salisbury C, Murphy M, Duncan P. The impact of digital-first consultations on workload in general practice: modeling study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e18203.
doi: 10.2196/18203
pubmed: 32543441
pmcid: 7327596
Cajander Å, Larusdottir M, Hedström G. The effects of automation of a patient-centric service in primary care on the work engagement and exhaustion of nurses. Qual User Experience. 2020;5:1–13.
doi: 10.1007/s41233-020-00038-x
Bijker WE, Law J. Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press; 1994.
Berg M, Aarts J, van der Lei J. ICT in health care: sociotechnical approaches. Methods Inf Med. 2003;42(04):297–301.
doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1634221
pubmed: 14534625
Silverstone R. 12 domesticating domestication. Reflections on the life of. Domestication Media Technol, pp. 229, 2005.
Timmermans S, Berg M. The practice of medical technology. Sociol Health Illn. 2003;25(3):97–114.
doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00342
pubmed: 14498932
Eldh AC, Sverker A, Bendtsen P, Nilsson E. Health Care professionals’ experience of a Digital Tool for Patient Exchange, Anamnesis, and Triage in Primary Care: qualitative study. JMIR Hum Factors. 2020;7(4):e21698.
doi: 10.2196/21698
pubmed: 33315014
pmcid: 7769692
Huddlestone L, Turner J, Eborall H, Hudson N, Davies M, Martin G. Application of normalisation process theory in understanding implementation processes in primary care settings in the UK: a systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2020;21:1–16.
doi: 10.1186/s12875-020-01107-y
Ziebart C, Kfrerer ML, Stanley M, Austin LC. A Digital-First Health Care Approach to managing pandemics: scoping review of pandemic self-triage tools. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e40983.
doi: 10.2196/40983
pubmed: 37018543
pmcid: 10198718
Baines R, Tredinnick-Rowe J, Jones R, Chatterjee A. Barriers and enablers in implementing electronic consultations in primary care: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(11):e19375.
doi: 10.2196/19375
pubmed: 33035177
pmcid: 7674136
Radionova N, Ög E, Wetzel A-J, Rieger MA, Preiser C. Impacts of Symptom checkers for laypersons’ self-diagnosis on Physicians in Primary Care: scoping review. J Med Internet Res. 2023;25:e39219.
doi: 10.2196/39219
pubmed: 37247214
pmcid: 10262026
Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 5 ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage; 2014.
Frennert S, Erlingsdóttir G, Muhic M, Rydenfält C, Nymberg VM, Ekman B. ‘It increases my ability to influence my ways of working’: a qualitative study on digitally mediated patient management in primary healthcare. Scand J Caring Sci, 2022.
Frennert S, Erlingsdóttir G, Muhic M, Rydenfält C, Nymberg VM, Ekman B. Embedding and integrating a digital patient management platform into Everyday Primary Care routines: qualitative case study. JMIR Formative Res. 2022;6(2):e30527.
doi: 10.2196/30527
Frennert S, Petersson L, Muhic M, Rydenfält C, Nymberg VM, Ekman B, Erlingsdottir G. Materiality and the mediating roles of eHealth: a qualitative study and comparison of three cases. Digit Health. 2022;8:20552076221116782.
pubmed: 35935713
pmcid: 9346257
Ludvigsson JF. How Sweden approached the COVID-19 pandemic: Summary and commentary on the National Commission Inquiry. Acta Paediatr. 2023;112(1):19–33.
doi: 10.1111/apa.16535
pubmed: 36065136
Crist JD, Tanner CA. Interpretation/analysis methods in hermeneutic interpretive phenomenology. Nurs Res. 2003;52(3):202–5.
doi: 10.1097/00006199-200305000-00011
pubmed: 12792262
Kotter JP. Force for change: how leadership differs from management. Simon and Schuster; 2008.
Swedish Municipalities S. and Regions. Accessibility in primary care, 2023-02-16, 2023; https://skr.se/vantetiderivarden/vantetidsstatistik/vantetidsstatistikforprimarvard/telefontillganglighet.54387.html#:~:text=Telefontillg%C3%A4nglighet%20till%20prim%C3%A4rv%C3%A5rd,dag%20enligt%20den%20nationella%20v%C3%A5rdgarantin .
van den Heuvel M, Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Schaufeli WB. Adapting to change: the value of change information and meaning-making. J Vocat Behav. 2013;83(1):11–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.004
Rydenfält C, Persson J, Larsson R, Johansson G, Erlingsdóttir G. Inter-Organizational Home Care Nursing Teams: A Comparison of a Region Wide Organizational Change Initiative With Success Factors Identified by Forerunners and Team Theory, Home Health Care Management & Practice, pp. 10848223231209926, 2023.
Orlikowski WJ, Gash DC. Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organizations. ACM Trans Inform Syst (TOIS). 1994;12(2):174–207.
doi: 10.1145/196734.196745
Oakland JS, Tanner S. Successful change management, Total quality management & business excellence, vol. 18, no. 1–2, pp. 1–19, 2007.
Braithwaite J, Glasziou P, Westbrook J. The three numbers you need to know about healthcare: the 60-30-10 challenge. BMC Med. 2020;18:1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01563-4
Greenhalgh T, Papoutsi C. Studying complexity in health services research: desperately seeking an overdue paradigm shift. Springer; 2018. pp. 1–6.
Trist EL, Bamforth KW. Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: an examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Hum Relat. 1951;4(1):3–38.
doi: 10.1177/001872675100400101
Walker GH, Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Jenkins DP. A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control paradigms, Theoretical issues in ergonomics science, 9, 6, pp. 479–99, 2008.
Nielsen P, Nielsen RN, Bamberger SG, Stamhus J, Fonager K, Larsen A, Vinding AL, Ryom PK, Omland Ø. Capabilities for innovation: the nordic model and employee participation. Nordic J Working life Stud. 2012;2(4):85–115.
doi: 10.19154/njwls.v2i4.2306
Schmidt HG, Moust JH. Factors affecting small-group tutorial learning: A review of research, Problem-based learning: A research perspective on learning interactions, pp. 19–52, 2000.
Eriksson P, Hammar T, Lagrosen S, Nilsson E. Digital consultation in primary healthcare: the effects on access, efficiency and patient safety based on provider experience; a qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care, pp. 1–9, 2022.
Fernholm R, Holzmann MJ, Malm-Willadsen K, Härenstam KP, Carlsson AC, Nilsson GH, Wachtler C. Patient and provider perspectives on reducing risk of harm in primary health care: a qualitative questionnaire study in Sweden. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2020;38(1):66–74.
doi: 10.1080/02813432.2020.1717095
pubmed: 31975643
pmcid: 7054932
Katz SJ, Moyer CA, Cox DT, Stern DT. Effect of a triage-based e‐mail system on clinic resource use and patient and physician satisfaction in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(9):736–44.
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20756.x
pubmed: 12950483
pmcid: 1494914