Usability and acceptability of a mobile application prototype for a combined behavioural activation and physical rehabilitation intervention in acute respiratory failure survivors.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory failure survivors experience depression symptoms and new impairments in physical function. Behavioural activation, an evidence-based nonpharmacological treatment for depression, combined with physical rehabilitation, is a promising intervention. Notably, mHealth applications (Apps) are potentially effective methods of delivering home-based interventions. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the usability and acceptability of a prototype App to deliver a combined, home-based behavioural activation and rehabilitation intervention to acute respiratory failure survivors. METHODS: A prospective user-preference study was conducted with acute respiratory failure survivors and self-designated care partners. Survivors were adults with at least mild depression symptoms before hospital discharge who received mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit for ≥24 h. Survivors and care partners reviewed the App during a single in-person home visit and completed the System Usability Scale (range: 0-100; score >73 considered "good") and a semistructured interview. RESULTS: Ten patient/care partner dyads completed study. The median [interquartile range] patient age was 50 [40-64] years, and 50% were female. The median System Usability Scale scores among patients and care partners were 76 [68-83] and 88 [75-94], respectively. Qualitative feedback supported usability and acceptability of the App, with three themes reported: (1) stigma associated with depression, (2) App as a motivator for recovery, and (3) App providing multidisciplinary support for survivor and care partner. CONCLUSIONS: A mobile App prototype designed to deliver a combined behavioural activation and rehabilitation intervention was usable and acceptable to survivors of acute respiratory failure and their care partners. Given the reported stigma associated with depression, the self-directed App may be particularly valuable for motivation and multidisciplinary support.

SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients.

Healthcare practitioners, patient safety leaders, educators and researchers increasingly recognise the value of human factors/ergonomics and make use of the discipline's person-centred models of sociotechnical systems. This paper first reviews one of the most widely used healthcare human factors systems models, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model, and then introduces an extended model, 'SEIPS 2.0'. SEIPS 2.0 incorporates three novel concepts into the original model: configuration, engagement and adaptation. The concept of configuration highlights the dynamic, hierarchical and interactive properties of sociotechnical systems, making it possible to depict how health-related performance is shaped at 'a moment in time'. Engagement conveys that various individuals and teams can perform health-related activities separately and collaboratively. Engaged individuals often include patients, family caregivers and other non-professionals. Adaptation is introduced as a feedback mechanism that explains how dynamic systems evolve in planned and unplanned ways. Key implications and future directions for human factors research in healthcare are discussed.

Time to accelerate integration of human factors and ergonomics in patient safety.

Progress toward improving patient safety has been slow despite engagement of the health care community in improvement efforts. A potential reason for this sluggish pace is the inadequate integration of human factors and ergonomics principles and methods in these efforts. Patient safety problems are complex and rarely caused by one factor or component of a work system. Thus, health care would benefit from human factors and ergonomics evaluations to systematically identify the problems, prioritize the right ones, and develop effective and practical solutions. This paper gives an overview of the discipline of human factors and ergonomics and describes its role in improving patient safety. We provide examples of how human factors and ergonomics principles and methods have improved both care processes and patient outcomes. We provide five major recommendations to better integrate human factors and ergonomics in patient safety improvement efforts: build capacity among health care workers to understand human factors and ergonomics, create market forces that demand the integration of human factors and ergonomics design principles into medical technologies, increase the number of human factors and ergonomic practitioners in health care organizations, expand investments in improvement efforts informed by human factors and ergonomics, and support interdisciplinary research to improve patient safety. In conclusion, human factors and ergonomics must play a more prominent role in health care if we want to increase the pace in improving patient safety.

Using an interdisciplinary approach to identify factors that affect clinicians' compliance with evidence-based guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify factors that affect clinicians' compliance with the evidence-based guidelines using an interdisciplinary approach and develop a conceptual framework that can provide a comprehensive and practical guide for designing effective interventions. DESIGN: A literature review and a brainstorming session with 11 researchers from a variety of scientific disciplines were used to identify theoretical and conceptual models describing clinicians' guideline compliance. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the bibliographies of the papers identified were used as data sources for identifying the relevant theoretical and conceptual models. RESULTS: Thirteen different models that originated from various disciplines including medicine, rural sociology, psychology, human factors and systems engineering, organizational management, marketing, and health education were identified. Four main categories of factors that affect compliance emerged from our analysis: clinician characteristics, guideline characteristics, system characteristics, and implementation characteristics. Based on these findings, we developed an interdisciplinary conceptual framework that specifies the expected interrelationships among these four categories of factors and their impact on clinicians' compliance. CONCLUSIONS: An interdisciplinary approach is needed to improve clinicians' compliance with evidence-based guidelines. The conceptual framework from this research can provide a comprehensive and systematic guide to identify barriers to guideline compliance and design effective interventions to improve patient safety.