Adolescent Access to Clinicians' Notes: Adolescent, Parent, and Clinician Perspectives.

PURPOSE: In 2021, federal guidelines mandated that health-care organizations share clinicians' notes with patients to increase information transparency. While findings indicate advantages for adult patients, less is known about note-sharing from the viewpoint of adolescents. This study aims to identify adolescent, parent, and clinician perspectives on the anticipated benefits and concerns of giving adolescents access to clinicians' notes and strategies to support note-sharing in this population. METHODS: We conducted six focus groups with adolescents, parents, and clinicians at a children's hospital from May to October 2021. A semistructured facilitator guide captured participant perspectives of note-sharing benefits, concerns, and strategies. Two researchers independently coded and analyzed transcript data using thematic analysis; a third researcher reconciled discrepancies. RESULTS: 38 stakeholders (17 adolescents, 10 parents, and 11 clinicians) described four benefits, three concerns, and four implementation strategies regarding adolescent note-sharing. Potential benefits included adolescents using notes to remember and reinforce the visit, gaining knowledge about their health, strengthening the adolescent-clinician relationship, and increasing agency in health care decisions. Concerns included notes leading to a breach in confidentiality, causing negative emotions, and becoming less useful for clinicians. Strategies included making note-sharing more secure, optimizing note layout and content, setting clear expectations, and having a portion of the note for clinician use only. DISCUSSION: Stakeholders suggest multiple strategies to optimize the implementation of note-sharing to support adolescent patients, parents, and clinicians as hospitals work to comply with federal regulations. These strategies may reinforce the potential benefits and mitigate the challenges of sharing notes with adolescent patients.

Human Factors Engineering for the Pediatric Hospitalist.

As pediatrics hospitalists, we care for a diverse population of hospitalized children with increasing acuity and complexity in large, multidisciplinary medical teams. In this Method/ology paper, we summarize how human factors engineering (HFE) can provide a framework and tools to help us understand and improve our complex care processes and resulting outcomes. First, we define and discuss the 3 domains of HFE (ie, physical, cognitive, and organizational) and offer examples of HFE's application to pediatric hospital medicine. Next, we highlight an HFE-based framework, the Systems Engineering for Patient Safety model, which conceptualizes how our work system shapes health care processes and outcomes. We provide tools for leveraging this model to better understand the context in which our work is done, which, consequently, informs how we design our systems and processes to improve the quality and safety of care. Finally, we outline the basics of human-centered design and highlight a case study of a project completed in a pediatric hospital setting focused on making rounds more family-centered. In addition, we provide resources for those interested in learning more about HFE.

Sociotechnical system design to support disaster intervention development teams.

Teams are critical in developing effective responses to various disasters and crises. This study defines a new type of response team: a disaster intervention development team, charged with rapidly developing emergent and innovative interventions to aid disaster response. In this case study, we analyzed the SHIELD Enterprise, a disaster intervention development team that developed and deployed a diagnostic testing system for community surveillance and diagnosis to respond to the COVID-19 infectious disease outbreak. We conducted interviews with 27 team members to identify the work system barriers and facilitators they experienced and to analyze the influence on team performance to inform sociotechnical system design for future teams. We identified 215 barriers and 238 facilitators, which we inductively categorized into eight overarching groups, i.e., categories, that included ambiguity, team processes, technology, design and project requirements, knowledge and expertise, organization, task work and environment. Our findings led to eight sociotechnical system design principles to support future disaster intervention development teams.

Team Cognition in Handoffs: Relating System Factors, Team Cognition Functions and Outcomes in Two Handoff Processes.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates how team cognition occurs in care transitions from operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU). We then seek to understand how the sociotechnical system and team cognition are related. BACKGROUND: Effective handoffs are critical to ensuring patient safety and have been the subject of many improvement efforts. However, the types of team-level cognitive processing during handoffs have not been explored, nor is it clear how the sociotechnical system shapes team cognition. METHOD: We conducted this study in an academic, Level 1 trauma center in the Midwestern United States. Twenty-eight physicians (surgery, anesthesia, pediatric critical care) and nurses (OR, ICU) participated in semi-structured interviews. We performed qualitative content analysis and epistemic network analysis to understand the relationships between system factors, team cognition in handoffs and outcomes. RESULTS: Participants described three team cognition functions in handoffs-(1) information exchange, (2) assessment, and (3) planning and decision making; information exchange was mentioned most. Work system factors influenced team cognition. Inter-professional handoffs facilitated information exchange but included large teams with diverse backgrounds communicating, which can be inefficient. Intra-professional handoffs decreased team size and role diversity, which may simplify communication but increase information loss. Participants in inter-professional handoffs reflected on outcomes significantly more in relation to system factors and team cognition (p < 0.001), while participants in intra-professional handoffs discussed handoffs as a task. CONCLUSION: Handoffs include team cognition, which was influenced by work system design. Opportunities for handoff improvement include a flexibly standardized process and supportive tools/technologies. We recommend incorporating perspectives of the patient and family in future work.

Interactions in Sociotechnical Systems: Achieving Balance in the Use of an Augmented Reality Mobile Application.

OBJECTIVE: We explore relationships between barriers and facilitators experienced by users to understand dynamic interactions in sociotechnical systems and improve a mobile phone-based augmented reality application that teaches users about the contents of a standardized pediatric code cart. BACKGROUND: Understanding interactions between performance obstacles and facilitators can provide guidance to (re)designing sociotechnical systems to improve system outcomes. Clinicians should know about contents and organization of code carts, and an augmented reality mobile application may improve that knowledge but changes the sociotechnical system in which they learn. Prior work identified barriers and facilitators impacting the use of this application-participants described dimensions together, indicating interactions that are explored in the current study. METHOD: We conducted four focus groups (number of clinicians = 18) and two interviews with clinicians who used the application. We performed a secondary analysis of focus group data exploring interactions between previously identified barriers and facilitators to application use. We used epistemic network analysis to visualize these interactions. RESULTS: Work system barriers interacted with barriers and facilitators interacted with facilitators to amplify cumulative negative or positive impact, respectively. Facilitators balanced barriers, mitigating negative impact. Facilitators also exacerbated barriers, worsening negative impact. CONCLUSION: Barriers and facilitators interact and can amplify, balance, and exacerbate each other-notably, positives are not always positive. To obtain desired outcomes, interactions must be further considered in sociotechnical system design, for example, the potential improvements to the application we identified.

Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) applications in responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned and considerations for methods.

Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE), with the goal to support humans through system design, can contribute to responses to emergencies and crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we describe three cases presented at the 21st Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association to demonstrate how HFE has been applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, namely to (1) develop a mobile diagnostic testing system, (2) understand the changes within physiotherapy services, and (3) guide the transition of a perioperative pain program to telemedicine. We reflect on methodological choices and lessons learned from each case and discuss opportunities to expand the impact of HFE in responses to future emergencies. The HFE discipline should develop faster, less resource intensive but still rigorous, methods, increase available HFE expertise by growing the field, and proactively enhance individual and public perception of the importance of HFE in crisis response.

Human-centered design of team health IT for pediatric trauma care transitions.

BACKGROUND: As problems of acceptance, usability and workflow integration continue to emerge with health information technologies (IT), it is critical to incorporate human factors and ergonomics (HFE) methods and design principles. Human-centered design (HCD) provides an approach to integrate HFE and produce usable technologies. However, HCD has been rarely used for designing team health IT, even though team-based care is expanding. OBJECTIVE: To describe the HCD process used to develop a usable team health IT (T3 or Teamwork Transition Technology) that provides cognitive support to pediatric trauma care teams during transitions from the emergency department to the operating room and the pediatric intensive care unit. METHODS: The HCD process included seven steps in three phases of analysis, design activities and feedback. RESULTS: The HCD process involved multiple perspectives and clinical roles that were engaged in inter-related activities, leading to design requirements, i.e., goals for the technology, a set of 47 information elements, and a list of HFE design principles applied to T3. Results of the evaluation showed a high usability score for T3. CONCLUSIONS: HFE can be integrated in the HCD process through a range of methods and design principles. That design process can produce a usable technology that provides cognitive support to a large diverse team involved in pediatric trauma care transitions. Future research should continue to focus on HFE-based design of team health IT.

Walking the line: balancing performance barriers and facilitators in an augmented reality mobile application for paediatric code cart training.

An augmented reality (AR) mobile smartphone application was developed for clinicians to improve their knowledge about the contents and organisation of a standardised paediatric code cart, an important tool in safe, effective paediatric resuscitations. This study used focus groups and interviews with 22 clinicians to identify work system barriers and facilitators to use of the application. We identified twelve dimensions of barriers and facilitators: convenience, device ownership, device size and type, gamification, interface design, movement/physical space, perception of others, spatial presence, technological experience, technological glitches, workload, and the perception and attitude towards code cart and resuscitation. These dimensions can guide improvement efforts, e.g. redesigning the interface, providing non-AR modes, improving the tutorial. We propose nine principles to guide the design of other digital health technologies incorporating AR. In particular, the workload demands created by using AR must be considered and accounted for in the design and implementation of such technologies. Practitioner summary: Augmented reality (AR) may prepare workers for situations that do not occur frequently. This study investigates barriers and facilitators to using an AR mobile smartphone application developed to improve clinician knowledge about code carts, leading to improvements to the application and principles to guide the design of other AR-based technologies.

Care transition of trauma patients: Processes with articulation work before and after handoff.

While care transitions influence quality of care, less work studies transitions between hospital units. We studied care transitions from the operating room (OR) to pediatric and adult intensive critical care units (ICU) using Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS)-based process modeling. We interviewed twenty-nine physicians (surgery, anesthesia, pediatric critical care) and nurses (OR, ICU) and administered the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture items about handoffs, care transitions and teamwork. Care transitions are complex, spatio-temporal processes and involve work during the transition (i.e., handoff and transport) and preparation and follow up activities (i.e., articulation work). Physicians defined the transition as starting earlier and ending later than nurses. Clinicians in the OR to adult ICU transition without a team handoff reported significantly less information loss and better cooperation, despite positive interview data. A team handoff and supporting articulation work should increase awareness, improving quality and safety of care transitions.

Work system barriers and facilitators in inpatient care transitions of pediatric trauma patients.

Hospital-based care of pediatric trauma patients includes transitions between units that are critical for quality of care and patient safety. Using a macroergonomics approach, we identify work system barriers and facilitators in care transitions. We interviewed eighteen healthcare professionals involved in transitions from emergency department (ED) to operating room (OR), OR to pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and ED to PICU. We applied the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) process modeling method and identified nine dimensions of barriers and facilitators - anticipation, ED decision making, interacting with family, physical environment, role ambiguity, staffing/resources, team cognition, technology and characteristic of trauma care. For example, handoffs involving all healthcare professionals in the OR to PICU transition created a shared understanding of the patient, but sometimes included distractions. Understanding barriers and facilitators can guide future improvements, e.g., designing a team display to support team cognition of healthcare professionals in the care transitions.

SEIPS 3.0: Human-centered design of the patient journey for patient safety.

The Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) and SEIPS 2.0 models provide a framework for integrating Human Factors and Ergonomics (HFE) in health care quality and patient safety improvement. As care becomes increasingly distributed over space and time, the "process" component of the SEIPS model needs to evolve and represent this additional complexity. In this paper, we review different ways that the process component of the SEIPS models have been described and applied. We then propose the SEIPS 3.0 model, which expands the process component, using the concept of the patient journey to describe the spatio-temporal distribution of patients' interactions with multiple care settings over time. This new SEIPS 3.0 sociotechnical systems approach to the patient journey and patient safety poses several conceptual and methodological challenges to HFE researchers and professionals, including the need to consider multiple perspectives, issues with genuine participation, and HFE work at the boundaries.

Complexity of the pediatric trauma care process: Implications for multi-level awareness.

Trauma is the leading cause of disability and death in children and young adults in the US. While much is known about the medical aspects of inpatient pediatric trauma care, not much is known about the processes and roles involved in in-hospital care. Using human factors engineering (HFE) methods, we combine interview, archival document and trauma registry data to describe how intra-hospital care transitions affect process and team complexity. Specifically, we identify the 53 roles directly involved in patient care in each hospital unit and describe the 3324 total transitions between hospital units and the 69 unique pathways, from arrival to discharge, experienced by pediatric trauma patients. We continue the argument to shift from eliminating complexity to coping with it and propose supporting three levels of awareness to enhance the resilience and adaptation necessary for patient safety in health care, i.e. safety in complex systems. We discuss three levels of awareness (individual, team and organizational) and describe challenges and potential sociotechnical solutions for each. For example, one challenge to individual awareness is high time pressure. A potential solution is clinical decision support of information perception, integration and decision making. A challenge to team awareness is inadequate "non-technical" skills, e.g., leadership, communication, role clarity; simulation or another form of training could improve these. The complex, distributed nature of this process is a challenge to organizational awareness; a potential solution is to develop awareness of the process and the roles and interdependencies within it, by using process modeling or simulation.

Information flow during pediatric trauma care transitions: things falling through the cracks.

Pediatric trauma is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality in children in the USA. Every year, nearly 10 million children are evaluated in emergency departments (EDs) for traumatic injuries, resulting in 250,000 hospital admissions and 10,000 deaths. Pediatric trauma care in hospitals is distributed across time and space, and particularly complex with involvement of large and fluid care teams. Several clinical teams (including emergency medicine, surgery, anesthesiology, and pediatric critical care) converge to help support trauma care in the ED; this co-location in the ED can help to support communication, coordination and cooperation of team members. The most severe trauma cases often need surgery in the operating room (OR) and are admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). These care transitions in pediatric trauma can result in loss of information or transfer of incorrect information, which can negatively affect the care a child will receive. In this study, we interviewed 18 clinicians about communication and coordination during pediatric trauma care transitions between the ED, OR and PICU. After the interview was completed, we surveyed them about patient safety during these transitions. Results of our study show that, despite the fact that the many services and units involved in pediatric trauma cooperate well together during trauma cases, important patient care information is often lost when transitioning patients between units. To safely manage the transition of this fragile and complex population, we need to find ways to better manage the information flow during these transitions by, for instance, providing technological support to ensure shared mental models.

Physician Perceptions of the Electronic Problem List in Pediatric Trauma Care.

OBJECTIVE: To describe physician perceptions of the potential goals, characteristics, and content of the electronic problem list (PL) in pediatric trauma. METHODS: We conducted 12 semistructured interviews with physicians involved in the pediatric trauma care process, including residents, fellows, and attendings from four services: emergency medicine, surgery, anesthesia, and pediatric critical care. Using qualitative content analysis, we identified PL goals, characteristics, and patient-related information from these interviews and the hospital's PL etiquette document of guideline. RESULTS: We identified five goals of the PL (to document the patient's problems, to make sense of the patient's problems, to make decisions about the care plan, to know who is involved in the patient's care, and to communicate with others), seven characteristics of the PL (completeness, efficiency, accessibility, multiple users, organized, created before arrival, and representing uncertainty), and 22 patient-related information elements (e.g., injuries, vitals). Physicians' suggested criteria for a PL varied across services with respect to goals, characteristics, and patient-related information. CONCLUSION: Physicians involved in pediatric trauma care described the electronic PL as ideally more than a list of a patient's medical diagnoses and injuries. The information elements mentioned are typically found in other parts of the patient's electronic record besides the PL, such as past medical history and labs. Future work is needed to evaluate the optimal design of the PL so that users with emergent cases, such as pediatric trauma, have access to key information related to the patient's immediate problems.

Challenges And Opportunities For Improving Patient Safety Through Human Factors And Systems Engineering.

Despite progress on patient safety since the publication of the Institute of Medicine's 1999 report, To Err Is Human, significant problems remain. Human factors and systems engineering (HF/SE) has been increasingly recognized and advocated for its value in understanding, improving, and redesigning processes for safer care, especially for complex interacting sociotechnical systems. However, broad awareness of HF/SE and its adoption into safety improvement work have been frustratingly slow. We provide an overview of HF/SE, its demonstrated value to a wide range of patient safety problems (in particular, medication safety), and challenges to its broader implementation across health care. We make a variety of recommendations to maximize the spread of HF/SE, including formal and informal education programs, greater adoption of HF/SE by health care organizations, expanded funding to foster more clinician-engineer partnerships, and coordinated national efforts to design and operationalize a system for spreading HF/SE into health care nationally.

Quantifying the Qualitative with Epistemic Network Analysis: A Human Factors Case Study of Task-Allocation Communication in a Primary Care Team.

Health care is fundamentally about people, and therefore, engineering approaches for studying healthcare systems must consider the perspective, concepts and methods offered by the human factors and ergonomics (HFE) discipline. HFE analysis is often qualitative to provide in-depth description of work systems and processes. To deepen our understanding of care processes, we propose the next level of analysis, i.e. quantification of qualitative data. Here, we describe epistemic network analysis (ENA) as a novel method to quantify qualitative data and present a case study applying ENA to assess communication in a primary care team. One high-performing primary care team consisting of a physician, nurse, medical assistant and unit clerk was observed for 15 hours. We analyzed task-allocation communications and identified the sender, receiver, synchronicity and acceptance. We used logistic regression and ENA to evaluate sender, receiver and synchronicity impact on task acceptance. The physician and unit clerk were most successful allocating tasks. Future work should consider the role of synchronous, interruptive communication as potentially useful in time-critical tasks and further investigate the role of the unit clerk. HFE researchers should consider ENA as a tool to expand and deepen their understanding of care processes by quantifying qualitative data.

SEIPS-based process modeling in primary care.

Process mapping, often used as part of the human factors and systems engineering approach to improve care delivery and outcomes, should be expanded to represent the complex, interconnected sociotechnical aspects of health care. Here, we propose a new sociotechnical process modeling method to describe and evaluate processes, using the SEIPS model as the conceptual framework. The method produces a process map and supplementary table, which identify work system barriers and facilitators. In this paper, we present a case study applying this method to three primary care processes. We used purposeful sampling to select staff (care managers, providers, nurses, administrators and patient access representatives) from two clinics to observe and interview. We show the proposed method can be used to understand and analyze healthcare processes systematically and identify specific areas of improvement. Future work is needed to assess usability and usefulness of the SEIPS-based process modeling method and further refine it.

A systematic review of mixed methods research on human factors and ergonomics in health care.

This systematic literature review provides information on the use of mixed methods research in human factors and ergonomics (HFE) research in health care. Using the PRISMA methodology, we searched four databases (PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Engineering Village) for studies that met the following inclusion criteria: (1) field study in health care, (2) mixing of qualitative and quantitative data, (3) HFE issues, and (4) empirical evidence. Using an iterative and collaborative process supported by a structured data collection form, the six authors identified a total of 58 studies that primarily address HFE issues in health information technology (e.g., usability) and in the work of healthcare workers. About two-thirds of the mixed methods studies used the convergent parallel study design where quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously. A variety of methods were used for collecting data, including interview, survey and observation. The most frequent combination involved interview for qualitative data and survey for quantitative data. The use of mixed methods in healthcare HFE research has increased over time. However, increasing attention should be paid to the formal literature on mixed methods research to enhance the depth and breadth of this research.