Publikationen

Background: Negative healthcare delivery experiences can cause lasting patient distress and medical service misuse and disuse. Yet no multi-site study has examined whether care-team members understand what most upsets patients about their care.
Methods: We interviewed 373 patients and 360 care-team members in the medical oncology and ambulatory surgery clinics of 11 major healthcare organizations across six U.S. census regions. Patients deeply upset by a service-related experience (n = 99, 27%) answered questions about that experience, while care-team members (n = 360) answered questions about their beliefs regarding what most upsets patients. We performed content analysis to identify memorably upsetting care (MUC) themes; a generalized estimating equation to explore whether MUC theme mention frequencies varied by participant role (care-team member vs. patient), specialty (oncology vs. surgery), facility (academic vs. community), and gender; and logistic regressions to investigate the effects of participant characteristics on individual themes.
Results: MUC themes included three systems issues (inefficiencies, access barriers, and facilities problems) and four care-team issues (miscommunication, neglect, coldness, and incompetence). MUC theme frequencies differed by role (all Ps < 0.001), with more patients mentioning care-team coldness (OR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.60) and incompetence (OR = 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.31); but more care-team members mentioning system inefficiencies (OR = 7.01; 95% CI, 4.31-11.40) and access barriers (OR, 5.48; 95% CI, 2.81-10.69).
Conclusions: When considering which service experiences most upset patients, care-team members underestimate the impact of their own behaviors and overestimate the impact of systems issues.
Implications: Healthcare systems should reconsider how they collect, interpret, disseminate, and respond to patient service reports.

Patientendatenmangementsysteme (PDMS) sind computerbasierte Systeme zur Verarbeitung von medizinischen Daten, die auf Intensivstationen sowohl positive als auch negative Einflüsse auf die Patientenversorgung haben können. Die Faktoren, die darüber entscheiden, ob ein PDMS eher Vor- oder Nachteile bringt und wie deutlich diese ausfallen, werden unter dem Begriff „Gebrauchstauglichkeit“ zusammengefasst. Diese Arbeit fasst die Ergebnisse aus 3 bereits publizierten Arbeiten zu diesem Thema zusammen.

Introduction:The term “usability” describes how effectively, efficiently, and with what level of user satisfaction an information system can be used to accomplish specific goals. Computerized critical care information systems (CCISs) with high usability increase quality of care and staff satisfaction, while reducing medication errors. Conversely, systems lacking usability can interrupt clinical workflow, facilitate errors, and increase charting time. The aim of this study was to investigate and compare usability across CCIS currently used in Germany.Methods:In this study, German intensive care unit (ICU) nurses and physicians completed a specialized, previously validated, web-based questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed CCIS usability based on three rating models: an overall rating of the systems, a model rating technical usability, and a model rating task-specific usability.Results:We analyzed results from 535 survey participants and compared eight different CCIS commonly used in Germany. Our results showed that usability strongly differs across the compared systems. The system ICUData had the best overall rating and technical usability, followed by the platforms ICM and MetaVision. The same three systems performed best in the rating of task-specific usability without significant differences between each other. Across all systems, overall ratings were more dependent on ease-of-use aspects than on aspects of utility/functionality, and the general scope of the functions offered was rated better than how well the functions are realized.Discussion:Our results suggest that manufacturers should shift some of their effort away from the development of new features and focus more on improving the ease-of-use and quality of existing features.

Introduction: Critical care information systems (CCIS) are computer software systems specialized for supporting the data processing tasks of clinical staff in intensive care units (ICUs). Reports on the impact of CCIS vary strongly from large benefits to harmful impact. One factor causing these inconsistent results is a large functional heterogeneity of the currently available systems, as no standards exist. Therefore, the aim of this study was to derive recommendations for a minimum range of functions that CCIS should incorporate from the perspective of clinical users.
Materials and Methods: We performed a web-based survey targeting clinical ICU staff in Germany. Participants rated the usefulness of pre-defined CCIS functions (36 for physicians / 31 for nurses) between 0-5. To capture confounders that might influence the ratings, we recorded 18 individual and workplace characteristics.
Results: The 912 participants rated all but three of the investigated functions as useful with median scores of 4-5. A multivariable analysis showed that the ratings were influenced by whether CCIS were used on the participants’ wards, by the rating of the function quality of the used CCIS, the years of work experience and whether the participant was a physician or a nurse.
Conclusions: Clinical ICU staff considers all but three of the here investigated CCIS functions as useful. Even though we identified a variety of factors influencing the usefulness ratings, their influence is rather small and thus does not limit the validity of our findings. Accordingly, we commend the functions identified as useful to be incorporated in CCIS.

Background: Today, most healthcare systems can be described as “compliant organizations”. However, as the patient safety movement continues to prosper, many scholars have proposed to evolve from a reactive approach toward a more proactive one that better addresses risks for preventable harm.
Purpose: Proactive organizations aim to achieve resilience. Stanford Health Care is trailblazing by integrating safety science experts into clinical practice who work in tandem with clinicians to proactively design work systems for safer, more effective, patient-centered care.
Methods: Adapting the human-centered design approach, a transdisciplinary team of engineers, physicians, and nurses utilizes an array of methods and tools to identify and analyze systems-related issues proactively and comprehensively, to search for and test a variety of solutions, to select the best options, implement solutions successfully, and to monitor sustainability of improvement.
Results: The team-conducted projects, e.g., to improve blood administration and to standardize set-up and management of cerebrospinal fluid drainage systems. Our accomplishments so far, include the systematic examination and comprehensive description of clinical work systems, their components and interactions, successful collaboration with clinical and support services throughout the organization, and the redesign of IT systems, medical devices, and nursing procedures. The efforts also led to price reductions by 50% for a single medical device. Since the completion of the projects, we have had no related adverse patient event, no associated litigation, and the nursing and service-quality indicators are within the satisfactory target range.
Conclusions: The SHC Advancing Patient Safety Program is a novel endeavor that analyzes systems issues in an organization-wide manner, executes improvement work in a comprehensive and integrated fashion, is a conduit for innovation, and is a medium for breaking through boundaries and silos thus fostering deeper collaboration among disciplines.

Cancer care is expensive. Cancer care provided by practice organizations varies in total spending incurred by patients and payers during treatment episodes and in quality of care, and this unnecessary variation contributes to the high cost.To use the variation in total spending and quality of care to assess oncology practice attributes distinguishing “high value” that may be tested and adopted by others to produce similar results.“Positive deviance” was used in this exploratory mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative) analysis of interview results. To quantify value, oncology practices located near the US Pacific Northwest and Midwest with low mean insurer-allowed spending were identified. Among those, practices with high quality were selected. A team then conducted site visits to interview practice personnel from June 2, 2015, through October 3, 2015, and to probe for attributes of high-value care. A qualitative analysis of their interview results was performed, and a panel of experienced oncologists was convened to review attributes occurring uniquely or frequently in low-spending practices for their contribution to value improvement and ease of implementation. Four positive deviant (ie, low-spending) oncology practices and 3 oncology practices that ranked near the middle of the spending distribution were studied.Thematic saturation in a qualitative analysis of high-value care attributes.From the 7 oncology practices studied, 13 attributes within the following 5 themes emerged: treatment planning and goal setting, services supporting the patient journey, technical support and physical layout, care team organization and function, and external context. Five attributes (ie, conservative use of imaging, early discussion of treatment limitations and consequences, single point of contact, maximal use of registered nurses for interventions, and a multicomponent health care system) most sharply distinguished the high-value practice sites. The expert oncologist panel judged 3 attributes (ie, early and normalized palliative care, ambulatory rapid response, and early discussion of treatment limitations and consequences) to carry the highest immediate potential for lowering spending without compromising the quality of care.Oncology practice attributes warranting further testing were identified that may lower total spending for high-quality oncology care.

The implementation of computerized critical care information systems (CCIS) can improve the quality of clinical care and staff satisfaction, but also holds risks of disrupting the workflow with consecutive negative impacts. The usability of CCIS is one of the key factors determining their benefits and weaknesses. However, no tailored instrument exists to measure the usability of such systems. Therefore, the aim of this study was to design and validate a questionnaire that measures the usability of CCIS. Following a mixed-method design approach, we developed a questionnaire comprising two evaluation models to assess the usability of CCIS: (1) the task-specific model rates the usability individually for several tasks which CCIS could support and which we derived by analyzing work processes in the ICU; (2) the characteristic-specific model rates the different aspects of the usability, as defined by the international standard “ergonomics of human-system interaction”. We tested validity and reliability of the digital version of the questionnaire in a sample population. In the sample population of 535 participants both usability evaluation models showed a strong correlation with the overall rating of the system (multiple correlation coefficients ≥0.80) as well as a very high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.93). The novel questionnaire is a valid and reliable instrument to measure the usability of CCIS and can be used to study the influence of the usability on their implementation benefits and weaknesses.

Objectives: (A) To gain insights into the experiences of patients invited to view their doctors' visit notes, with a focus on those who review multiple notes; (B) to examine the relationships among fully transparent electronic medical records and quality of care, the patient-doctor relationship, patient engagement, self-care, self-management skills and clinical outcomes.
Design: Mixed methods qualitative study: analyses of survey data, including content analysis of free-text answers, and quantitative-descriptive measures combined with semistructured individual interviews, patient activation measures, and member checks.
Setting: Greater Boston, USA.
Participants: Patients cared for by primary care physicians (PCPs) at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center who had electronic access to their PCP visit notes. Among those submitting surveys, 576 free-text answers were identified and analysed (414 from female patients, 162 from male patients; 23-88 years). In addition, 13 patients (9 female, 4 male; 58-87 years) were interviewed.
Results: Patient experiences indicate improved understanding (of health information), better relationships (with doctors), better quality (adherence and compliance; keeping track) and improved self-care (patient-centredness, empowerment). Patients want more doctors to offer access to their notes, and some wish to contribute to their generation. Those patients with repeated experience reviewing notes express fewer concerns and more perceived benefits.
Conclusions: As the use of fully transparent medical records spreads, it is important to gain a deeper understanding of possible benefits or harms, and to characterise target populations that may require varying modes of delivery. Patient desires for expansion of this practice extend to specialty care and settings beyond the physician's office. Patients are also interested in becoming involved actively in the generation of their medical records. The OpenNotes movement may increase patient activation and engagement in important ways.

The aim is to demonstrate the benefit of the medico-ergonomic approach for the redesign of clinical work systems. Based on the six layer model, a concept for an ‘integrated therapy safety management’ is drafted. This concept could serve as a basis to improve resilience. Methods The concept is developed through a concept-based approach. The state of the art of safety and complexity research in human factors and ergonomics forms the basis. The findings are synthesized to a concept for ‘integrated therapy safety management’. The concept is applied by way of example for the ‘medication process’ to demonstrate its practical implementation. Results The ‘integrated therapy safety management’ is drafted in accordance with the six layer model. This model supports a detailed description of specific work tasks, the corresponding responsibilities and related workflows at different layers by using the concept of ‘bridge managers’. ‘Bridge managers’ anticipate potential errors and monitor the controlled system continuously. If disruptions or disturbances occur, they respond with corrective actions which ensure that no harm results and they initiate preventive measures for future procedures. The concept demonstrates that in a complex work system, the human factor is the key element and final authority to cope with the residual complexity. The expertise of the ‘bridge managers’ and the recursive hierarchical structure results in highly adaptive clinical work systems and increases their resilience. Conclusions The medico-ergonomic approach is a highly promising way of coping with two complexities. It offers a systematic framework for comprehensive analyses of clinical work systems and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration.