Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation

BMC Health Services Research

Ian Stirling²  Paul Lowes¹  Simon Latimer¹  Claire Hudson¹  Flis Henwood⁵  Paul Helliwell³  Lawrence Goldberg¹  Emma Gillingham¹  Steve Flowers⁴  Julie Davis¹  Ferdinand Bravo¹  Rachel Anson¹  Mary Darking⁵ 

[1] Sussex Kidney Unit, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Eastern Road, Brighton, BN2 5BE, UK;South Eastern Kidney Patients Association (SEKPA), c/o Sussex Kidney Unit, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Eastern Road, Brighton BN2 5BE, UK;Clinical Computing Limited, 1 Bath Street, Ipswich IP2 8SD, UK;Centre for Innovation Management (CENTRIM), Freeman Centre, University of Brighton, University of Sussex Campus, Falmer BN1 9QE, UK;School of Applied Social Science, Faculty of Health, University of Brighton, Mayfield House, Falmer BN1 9PH, UK

关键词: Capability building;    Evaluation;    Care;    Participatory methods;    Practice;    Telemedicine;    Electronic patient records;   

Others  :  1130831
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6963-14-243

 received in 2013-03-25, accepted in 2014-05-02,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) and telemedicine are positioned by policymakers as health information technologies that are integral to achieving improved clinical outcomes and efficiency savings. However, evaluating the extent to which these aims are met poses distinct evaluation challenges, particularly where clinical and cost outcomes form the sole focus of evaluation design. We propose that a practice-centred approach to evaluation - in which those whose day-to-day care practice is altered (or not) by the introduction of new technologies are placed at the centre of evaluation efforts – can complement and in some instances offer advantages over, outcome-centric evaluation models.

Methods

We carried out a regional programme of innovation in renal services where a participative approach was taken to the introduction of new technologies, including: a regional EPR system and a system to support video clinics. An ‘action learning’ approach was taken to procurement, pre-implementation planning, implementation, ongoing development and evaluation. Participants included clinicians, technology specialists, patients and external academic researchers. Whilst undergoing these activities we asked: how can a practice-centred approach be embedded into evaluation of health information technologies?

Discussion

Organising EPR and telemedicine evaluation around predetermined outcome measures alone can be impractical given the complex and contingent nature of such projects. It also limits the extent to which unforeseen outcomes and new capabilities are recognised. Such evaluations often fail to improve understanding of ‘when’ and ‘under what conditions’ technology-enabled service improvements are realised, and crucially, how such innovation improves care.

Summary

Our contribution, drawn from our experience of the case study provided, is a protocol for practice-centred, participative evaluation of technology in the clinical setting that privileges care. In this context ‘practice-centred’ evaluation acts as a scalable, coordinating framework for evaluation that recognises health information technology supported care as an achievement that is contingent and ongoing. We argue that if complex programmes of technology-enabled service innovation are understood in terms of their contribution to patient care and supported by participative, capability-building evaluation methodologies, conditions are created for practitioners and patients to realise the potential of technologies and make substantive contributions to the evidence base underpinning health innovation programmes.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Darking et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Berg M: Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. Int J Med Inform 2001, 64(2–3):143-156.
• [2]Jones M: ‘Computers can land people on Mars, why can't they get them to work in a hospital?’: implementation of an electronic patient record system in a UK hospital. Methods Inf Med 2003, 42(4):410-415.
• [3]Takian A, Petrakaki D, Cornford T, Sheikh A, Barber N: Building a house on shifting sand: methodological considerations when evaluating the implementation and adoption of national electronic health record systems. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:105. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Elwyn G, Hardisty A, Peirce S, May C, Evans R, Robinson D, Bolton C, Yousef Z, Conley E, Rana O, Gray WA, Preece AD: Detecting deterioration in patients with chronic disease using telemonitoring: navigating the ‘trough of disillusionment’. J Eval Clin Pract 2012, 18(4):896-903.
• [5]Greenhalgh T, Russell J: Why do evaluations of eHealth Programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med 2010, 7:11.
• [6]May C, Finch T, Ballini L, MacFarlane A, Mair F, Murray E, Treweek S, Rapley T: Evaluating complex interventions and health technologies using normalization process theory: development of a simplified approach and web-enabled toolkit. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:245. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Fenwick T: Sociomateriality in medical practice and learning: attuning to what matters. Med Educ 2014, 1(1):44-52.
• [8]Lave J, Wenger E: Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.
• [9]Orlikowski WJ: Using technology and constituting structures: a practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organ Sci 2000, 11(4):404-428.
• [10]Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D: Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography. BMC Med 2011, 9:45. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Mol A, Moser I, Pols J: Putting practice into theory. In Care in Practice: on Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms. Edited by Mol A, Moser I, Pols J. Beilefeld: Transcript Verlag; 2010:7-26.
• [12]Barad K: Getting Real: Technoscientific Practices and the materialization of reality. In Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Edited by Barad K. London: Duke University Press; 2007:189-222.
• [13]Goldberg L, Pollak S: A patient-centric approach to computerising disease management across sussex: specifying a regional pilot to personalise the total care of patients with kidney disease: an initial analysis of costs and benefits. Report to Primary Care Trust 2008, 1-36.
• [14]Mukoro F: Renal patient view: a system which provides patients online access to their test results. London: NHS Kidney Care; 2012. [Final evaluation report]
• [15]Flowers S: New directions in user innovation research: the developing policy research agenda. In Perspectives on User Innovation. Edited by Flowers S, Henwood F. London: Imperial College Press; 2009. [Series on Technology Management, Volume 16]
• [16]Department of Health: The Renal Action Learning Sets Phase II Interim Report. London; 2007. Ref 8464
• [17]Goldberg L: How can information technology work for wellbeing? Dialogue, data and digital media. In Better health in harder times: active citizens and innovation on the frontline. Edited by Walmsley J, Davies C, Hales M, Flux R. Bristol: Policy Press; 2012.
• [18]Anson R, Pearson S, Bissenden A, Goldberg L: Piloting videotelephony-assisted renal clinics: Initial experience and lessons learnt. 2012. [British Renal Society Conference; 2012 May 1-3; Manchester] Available from URL: http://www.britishrenal.org/Conferences/Conferences-Home/BRS-Conference-2012/Poster-Programme-2012.aspx webcite
• [19]Darking M, Flowers S, Gillingham E, Goldberg L, Henwood F: Care, technology and administration: an ethic of care analysis of the competing demands placed on ward nursing. In In the Proceedings of Critical Care. Brighton; 2012.
• [20]Tomlinson J: Exploration of transformation and distributed leadership. Nursing Manage 2012, 19(4):30-34.
• [21]Michel-Verkerke MB: Information quality of a nursing information system depends on the nurses: a combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Int J Med Inf 2012, 81:662-673.
• [22]Pollock N: When is a workaround? Conflict and negotiation in computer system development. Sci Technol Hum Values 2005, 30(4):1-19.
• [23]Ellingsen G, Monteiro E, Roed K: Integration as interdependent workaround. Int J Med Inform 2012. in press
• [24]Heathfield H, Pitty D, Hanka R: Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges. Br Med J 1998, 316:1959-1961.
• [25]Ammenwerth E, Graber S, Herrmann G, Burkle T, Konig J: Evaluation of health information systems – problems and challenges. Med Inf 2003, 71:125-135.
• [26]Littlejohns P, Wyatt J, Garvican L: Evaluating computerised health information systems: hard lessons still to be learnt. Br Med J 2003, 326(7394):860-863.
• [27]Bowie P, Bradley N, Rushmer R: Clinical audit and quality improvement - time for a rethink? J Eval Clin Pract 2012, 18(1):42-48.
• [28]Haynes P: Chaos, complexity and transformations in social care policy in England. Public Money Manage 2007, 3:199-206.
• [29]Akrich M: From communities of practice to epistemic communities: health mobilizations on the internet. Sociol Res Online 2010, 15:2.
• [30]Callon M, Rabeharisoa V: The growing engagement of emergent concerned groups in political and economic life. Lessons from the French Association of neuromuscular disease patients. Sci Technol Hum Values 2008, 33(2):230-261.
• [31]Rogers A, Kirk S, Gately C, May CR, Finch T: Established users and the making of telecare work in long term condition management: implications for health policy. Soc Sci Med 2011, 72(7):1077-1084.
• [32]Barnes M: Care in everyday life: an ethic of care in practice. Bristol: Policy; 2012.
• [33]Morton RL, Tong A, Howard K, Snelling P, Webster AC: The views of patients and carers in treatment decision making for chronic kidney disease: systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Br Med J 2010, 340:7742.
• [34]Bratan T, Stramer K, Greehalgh T: ‘Never heard of it’ – understanding the public’s lack of awareness of a new electronic patient record. Health Expect 2010, 13(4):379-391.
• [35]Hurdle JF, Adams SA, Brokel J, Chang B, Embi PJ, Petersen C, Terrazas E, Winkelstein P: A code of professional ethical conduct for the American Medical Informatics Association: an AMIA Board ofDirectors approved white paper. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007, 14(4):391-393.
• [36]Taylor M, Karet Frankl FE: Developing a strategy for the management of rare diseases: needs central coordination and input from patients. BMJ 2012, 324(e2417):344-345.
• [37]Anson R, Bravo F, Darking M, Helliwell P, Goldberg L: Implementing the Sussex Renal Innovation Programme: implications for outpatient service delivery. Manchester; 2012. [British Renal Society Conference] Available from URL: http://www.britishrenal.org/Conferences/Conferences-Home/BRS-Conference-2012/Poster-Programme-2012.aspx webcite
• [38]Hudson C, Stirling I, Davis J, Anson A, Goldberg L: Using Renal patient view to improve the patient experience – measuring the value of the information patients receive. Manchester; 2012. [British Renal Society Conference] Available from URL: http://www.britishrenal.org/Conferences/Conferences-Home/BRS-Conference-2012/Poster-Programme-2012.aspx webcite