Mapping the delineation of practice to the AMIA foundational domains for applied health informatics.

OBJECTIVE: This article reports on the alignment between the foundational domains and the delineation of practice (DoP) for health informatics, both developed by the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA). Whereas the foundational domains guide graduate-level curriculum development and accreditation assessment, providing an educational pathway to the minimum competencies needed as a health informatician, the DoP defines the domains, tasks, knowledge, and skills that a professional needs to competently perform in the discipline of health informatics. The purpose of this article is to determine whether the foundational domains need modification to better reflect applied practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using an iterative process and through individual and collective approaches, the foundational domains and the DoP statements were analyzed for alignment and eventual harmonization. Tables and Sankey plot diagrams were used to detail and illustrate the resulting alignment. RESULTS: We were able to map all the individual DoP knowledge statements and tasks to the AMIA foundational domains, but the statements within a single DoP domain did not all map to the same foundational domain. Even though the AMIA foundational domains and DoP domains are not in perfect alignment, the DoP provides good examples of specific health informatics competencies for most of the foundational domains. There are, however, limited DoP knowledge statements and tasks mapping to foundational domain 6-Social and Behavioral Aspects of Health. DISCUSSION: Both the foundational domains and the DoP were developed independently, several years apart, and for different purposes. The mapping analyses reveal similarities and differences between the practice experience and the curricular needs of health informaticians. CONCLUSIONS: The overall alignment of both domains may be explained by the fact that both describe the current and/or future health informatics professional. One can think of the foundational domains as representing the broad foci for educational programs for health informaticians and, hence, they are appropriately the focus of organizations that accredit these programs.

Examining perspectives on the adoption and use of computer-based patient-reported outcomes among clinicians and health professionals: a Q methodology study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine factors that influence the adoption and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the electronic health record (EHR) among users. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Q methodology, supported by focus groups, semistructured interviews, and a review of the literature was used for data collection about opinions on PROs in the EHR. An iterative thematic analysis resulted in 49 statements that study participants sorted, from most unimportant to most important, under the following condition of instruction: "What issues are most important or most unimportant to you when you think about the adoption and use of patient-reported outcomes within the electronic health record in routine clinical care?" Using purposive sampling, 50 participants were recruited to rank and sort the 49 statements online, using HTMLQ software. Principal component analysis and Varimax rotation were used for data analysis using the PQMethod software. RESULTS: Participants were mostly physicians (24%) or physician/researchers (20%). Eight factors were identified. Factors included the ability of PROs in the EHR to enable: efficient and reliable use; care process improvement and accountability; effective and better symptom assessment; patient involvement for care quality; actionable and practical clinical decisions; graphical review and interpretation of results; use for holistic care planning to reflect patients' needs; and seamless use for all users. DISCUSSION: The success of PROs in the EHR in clinical settings is not dependent on a "one size fits all" strategy, demonstrated by the diversity of viewpoints identified in this study. A sociotechnical approach for implementing PROs in the EHR may help improve its success and sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: PROs in the EHR are most important to users when the technology is used to improve patient outcomes. Future research must focus on the impact of embedding this EHR functionality on care processes.

Accrediting Graduate Programs in Healthcare Quality and Safety.

The number of master's degree programs in healthcare quality and safety (HQS) has increased significantly over the past decade. Academic accreditation provides assurance that educational programs are of a high quality and meet the needs of students, employers, and the general public. Under the guidance of the Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education, faculty from 9 universities collaborated in the development of criteria and related content domains to be used in the accreditation of graduate programs in HQS. Thirteen content domains were identified. Four of the content domains, safety and error science, improvement science and quality principles, evidence-based practice, and measurement and process improvement are thought to be foundational domains for graduate education in HQS. This article describes the development of the content domains and accompanying standards for accreditation of graduate programs in HQS.

Master's Programs in Patient Safety and Health Care Quality Worldwide.

OBJECTIVES: As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Institute of Medicine's report To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System, it is important to assess the progress we have made with respect to patient safety thus far. This study reviews all the existing master's-level degree programs worldwide and assesses them to determine trends and disagreements. METHODS: Web-based searches were performed using phrases such as "masters," "education," "patient safety," and "healthcare quality." Communication with programs representatives was used to obtain pertinent data not represented on the programs' webpages. RESULTS: Twenty-five programs exist worldwide, 17 of which within North America. These programs are predominantly taught in a part-time format, with many providing an online setting for learning and requiring various forms of scholarship. CONCLUSIONS: Programs varied widely in credit hour structure and duration, as well as primary competencies. This highlights the need for the development of program standards to ensure the quality of such programs, as have been developed in other professional fields. Information pertaining to these programs including similarities, differences, trends, and characteristics is detailed in this section. The existence and development of these programs are paramount to future progression in health care, to prevent future errors by studying previous ones, thus improving health care.

Required data elements for interprofessional rounds through the lens of multiple professions.

The lack of a proper system for ongoing open interprofessional communication among care providers increases miscommunications and medical errors. Seamless access to patient information is important for care providers to prevent miscommunication and improve patient safety. A shared understanding of the information needs of different care providers in an interprofessional team is lacking. Our purpose is to identify care providers' information needs from the perspective of different professions for communication, shared understanding about the patient, and decision-making. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 subject matter experts representing eight professions, including dentistry, dietetics, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, and social work in a 465-bed academic hospital at a large urban Midwestern city. We used an in-house rounding tool presenting physicians' information needs and a hypothetical patient scenario to collect participants' feedback. Interview notes were coded using direct content analysis. We identified 22 additional essential data elements for an interprofessional rounding tool. We categorized those into six domains: discharge-related, social determinants of health, hospital safety, nutrition, interprofessional situation awareness, and patient history. A well-designed validated rounding tool that includes an interprofessional team of care providers' information needs could improve communication, care planning, and decision-making among them.

Planning for patient-reported outcome implementation: Development of decision tools and practical experience across four clinics.

INTRODUCTION: Many institutions are attempting to implement patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Because PROs often change clinical workflows significantly for patients and providers, implementation choices can have major impact. While various implementation guides exist, a stepwise list of decision points covering the full implementation process and drawing explicitly on a sociotechnical conceptual framework does not exist. METHODS: To facilitate real-world implementation of PROs in electronic health records (EHRs) for use in clinical practice, members of the EHR Access to Seamless Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Consortium developed structured PRO implementation planning tools. Each institution pilot tested the tools. Joint meetings led to the identification of critical sociotechnical success factors. RESULTS: Three tools were developed and tested: (1) a PRO Planning Guide summarizes the empirical knowledge and guidance about PRO implementation in routine clinical care; (2) a Decision Log allows decision tracking; and (3) an Implementation Plan Template simplifies creation of a sharable implementation plan. Seven lessons learned during implementation underscore the iterative nature of planning and the importance of the clinician champion, as well as the need to understand aims, manage implementation barriers, minimize disruption, provide ample discussion time, and continuously engage key stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Highly structured planning tools, informed by a sociotechnical perspective, enabled the construction of clear, clinic-specific plans. By developing and testing three reusable tools (freely available for immediate use), our project addressed the need for consolidated guidance and created new materials for PRO implementation planning. We identified seven important lessons that, while common to technology implementation, are especially critical in PRO implementation.

AMIA Board White Paper: AMIA 2017 core competencies for applied health informatics education at the master's degree level.

This White Paper presents the foundational domains with examples of key aspects of competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) that are intended for curriculum development and accreditation quality assessment for graduate (master's level) education in applied health informatics. Through a deliberative process, the AMIA Accreditation Committee refined the work of a task force of the Health Informatics Accreditation Council, establishing 10 foundational domains with accompanying example statements of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are components of competencies by which graduates from applied health informatics programs can be assessed for competence at the time of graduation. The AMIA Accreditation Committee developed the domains for application across all the subdisciplines represented by AMIA, ranging from translational bioinformatics to clinical and public health informatics, spanning the spectrum from molecular to population levels of health and biomedicine. This document will be periodically updated, as part of the responsibility of the AMIA Accreditation Committee, through continued study, education, and surveys of market trends.

Safety I to Safety II: A Paradigm Shift or More Work as Imagined? Comment on "False Dawns and New Horizons in Patient Safety Research and Practice".

In their editorial, Mannion and Braithwaite contend that the approach to solving the problem of unsafe care, Safety I, is flawed and requires a shift in thinking to what they are calling Safety II. We have reservations as to whether by itself the shift from Safety I to Safety II is sufficient. Perhaps our failure to improve outcomes in the field of patient safety and quality lies less in our approach - Safety I vs. Safety II - and more in the lack of an agreed upon, commonly understood set of core competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) needed in its workforce. The authors explore in this commentary the need to establish core competencies as part of the pathway to professionalism for the discipline of patient safety and quality.

Development and validation of a tool to assess self-efficacy for competence in interprofessional collaborative practice.

Although interprofessional education and collaborative practice have gained increasing attention over the past five decades, development of rigorous tools to assess related competencies is still in infancy. The purpose of this study was to develop an instrument to evaluate health professions students' self-efficacy in interprofessional collaborative competency and to assess the instrument's psychometric properties. We developed a new instrument based on the Interprofessional Education Collaborative's (IPEC) Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice. In a cross-sectional study design, 660 students from 11 health programmes at an urban university in the Midwest USA completed the Interprofessional Education Collaborative Competency Self Efficacy Tool (IPECC-SET). Rasch analysis evaluated the following: (1) functioning of the instrument; (2) fit of items within each subscale to a unidimensional construct; (3) person-response validity; (4) person-separation reliability; and (5) differential item functioning in relation to gender and ethnicity. After removing seven items with suboptimal fit, each subscale demonstrated high internal validity. Two items demonstrated differential item functioning (DIF) for "Gender" and none for "Race/Ethnicity." Our findings provide early evidence of IPECC-SET as a valid measure of self-efficacy for interprofessional competence for health professions students. Additional research is warranted to establish external validity of the new instrument by conducting studies across institutions.

Core informatics competencies for clinical and translational scientists: what do our customers and collaborators need to know?

Since the inception of the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in 2006, leaders in education across CTSA sites have been developing and updating core competencies for Clinical and Translational Science (CTS) trainees. By 2009, 14 competency domains, including biomedical informatics, had been identified and published. Since that time, the evolution of the CTSA program, changes in the practice of CTS, the rapid adoption of electronic health records (EHRs), the growth of biomedical informatics, the explosion of big data, and the realization that some of the competencies had proven to be difficult to apply in practice have made it clear that the competencies should be updated. This paper describes the process undertaken and puts forth a new set of competencies that has been recently endorsed by the Clinical Research Informatics Workgroup of AMIA. In addition to providing context and background for the current version of the competencies, we hope this will serve as a model for revision of competencies over time.

Competencies for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement: A Synthesis of Recommendations in Influential Position Papers.

BACKGROUND: There is limited conformity among patient safety and quality improvement (QI) competencies of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSA), by stage of skill acquisition, essential for all health professionals. A study was conducted to identify, categorize, critically appraise, and discuss implications of competency recommendations published in influential position papers. METHODS: A literature search was conducted of competency recommendations in position papers published by national and international professional associations, expert panels, consortia, centers and institutes, and convened committees, in the domain of patient safety and QI. To be included in the analysis, the competency had to be recommended in at least 20% (rounded) of the position papers. Qualitative content analysis was used to identify themes among the published competencies for the skill acquisition levels of competent and expert, using Dreyfus's definitions. RESULTS: On the basis of the 22 papers that met the inclusion criteria, 17 themes were identified among the 59 competencies for the skill level competent. Among the 23 competencies for the skill level expert, 13 themes were identfied. Competencies within the theme "Evidence-Based Practice" were most frequently recommended across both skill levels. The themes "Interdisciplinary Teamwork and Collaboration" and "Evidence-Based Practice" were the themes identified among the greatest number of position papers for the skill level competent and expert, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The identified themes for competencies in patient safety and QI have implications for curriculum development and assessment of competence in education and practice. The findings in this study demonstrate a need to discourage publication of recommendations of yet more competencies and to instead encourage development of an international consensus on the essential KSA for patient safety and QI across all health professions and all levels of skill acquisition.

Technical and operational users' opinions of a handheld device to detect directed energy.

INTRODUCTION: Lasers, a form of directed energy (DE), are a threat to pilots and Air Force personnel. In light of this threat, a handheld medical device called the "Tricorder" is under development to improve situational awareness of DE. Current operational procedures do not include methods for recording or handling new information regarding DE. The purpose of this study was to understand Air Force personnel opinions and beliefs about desired features and operational use to enhance user acceptance of the Tricorder. METHOD: Q-methodology was implemented to study opinions and beliefs related to DE. Two groups were approached, medical personnel in the Illinois Air National Guard and four active duty members of an Air Force Rescue Squadron. Both groups completed the same Q-sort of both operational and equipment concerns. RESULTS: Six opinion sets regarding operational concerns described 61% of the total variation in perceptions among participants. The factors were: concern over health effects, implications to individuals, combat/tactical concerns, force health protection, and theater/tactical concerns. Five opinion sets described 68% of the variation in the equipment functions perceived as most important. The participants indicated that ideally the device should measure exposure, enhance laser detection/response, support night vision and ease of use, detect threats, and enhance combat medicine. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed the complexity of equipment and the operational implications of detecting DE. Q-methodology is a unique strategy to both evaluate technology and explore users' concerns.

Securing ePHI--can clinicians and IT ever agree?

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) affects patients, IT professionals and providers. Implementation requires cooperation among clinical and staff, presuming an equal understanding of the law and its implementation. Two Q-sort sessions with different Conditions of Instruction (COI) were attended by each study participant: one COI focused on a personal perspective about the effectiveness of security standards in preventing or mitigating security problems with EPHI. The second COI examined the participant's perception of how a co-worker would see aspects of security problems. The first Q-sort resulted in four distinct factors, two of which, administratively minded and patient centric, suggest divergence in opinion. The second sort's results reveal the inability of participants to forecast what their co-workers will perceive as salient to a security situation. Results suggest that people might adapt to changes required by security applications if the changes in workflow are described in role-based situations.