A participatory systems approach to design for safer integrated medicine management

Knowledge mapping analysis of safety ergonomics: a bibliometric study

Although a significant attention, the field of safety ergonomics has not yet been systematically profiled based on recent studies. To fully understand the current research status, basis, hotspots, and development trends in the field, 533 documents from the Web of Science core database were used for knowledge mapping analysis by the bibliometric method. The study found that the USA is the top country in publications, and Tehran University is the institution with the highest number of publications. Ergonomics and Applied Economics are the authoritative safety ergonomics journals. Through co-occurrence and co-citation analysis, current safety ergonomics research is focussed on healthcare, product design, and occupational health and safety. The keyword timeline view indicates that the main research paths are occupational health and safety, and patient safety research. The analysis of burst keywords shows that safety ergonomics research in management, model design, and system design areas are research frontiers in the field.Practitioner summary: This paper presents a knowledge mapping of safety ergonomics research through bibliometric analysis. The research results show the research status, research hotspots, and research frontiers in the field of safety ergonomics, which provides a direction for other scholars to quickly understand the development of this field.

Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles.

MAIN RESULTS

We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Cyclical experience-based design: A proposal for engaging stakeholders in a co-creative model for primary health care service design

Healthcare services face difficulties in using structured methods for service design and having patient participation in such processes. There are few models on healthcare service design and even less focused on Primary Health Care (PHC) in the literature. Therefore, this paper contributes to this domain by presenting the proposal of a co-creative model to design PHC services. The proposed model was constructed based on the study of reference models in PHC and co-design. Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle and the Experience-Based Co-Design approach were used to structure the model. The resulting model contributes to (a) continuous improvement, (b) improvement analysis and registry, (c) identification and solution of PHC users' real needs, (d) community participation and empowerment, (e) creation of experience-focused and patient-centred services. The model's use of co-creation enables patients and PHC staff to understand each other's needs and challenges, and to create together appropriate solutions to their communities and act toward more satisfying services.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

An Assessment of Individuals’ Systems Thinking Skills via Immersive Virtual Reality Complex System Scenarios

This study utilized the application of authentic Virtual Reality (VR) to replicate the real-world complex system scenarios of a large retail supply chain. The proposed VR scenarios were developed based on an established systems thinking instrument that consists of seven dimensions: level of complexity, independence, interaction, change, uncertainty, systems’ worldview, and flexibility. However, in this study, we only developed the VR scenarios for the first dimension, level of complexity, to assess an individual’s Systems Thinking Skills (STS) when he or she engages in a turbulent virtual environment. The main objective of this study was to compare a student’s STS when using traditional ST instruments versus VR scenarios for the complexity dimension. The secondary aim was to investigate the efficacy of VR scenarios utilizing three measurements: Simulation Sickness Questionnaire (SSQ), System Usability Scale (SUS), and Presence Questionnaire (PQ). In addition to the three measures, NASA TLX assessment was also performed to assess the perceived workload with regards to performing the tasks in VR scenarios. The results show students’ preferences in the VR scenarios are not significantly different from their responses obtained using the traditional systems skills instrument. The efficacy measures confirmed that the developed VR scenarios are user friendly and lie in an acceptable region for users. Finally, the overall NASA TLX score suggests that users require 36% perceived work effort to perform the activities in VR scenarios.

Innovating health care: key characteristics of human-centered design

Human-centered design is about understanding human needs and how design can respond to these needs. With its systemic humane approach and creativity, human-centered design can play an essential role in dealing with today's care challenges. 'Design' refers to both the process of designing and the outcome of that process, which includes physical products, services, procedures, strategies and policies. In this article, we address the three key characteristics of human-centered design, focusing on its implementation in health care: (1) developing an understanding of people and their needs; (2) engaging stakeholders from early on and throughout the design process; (3) adopting a systems approach by systematically addressing interactions between the micro-, meso- and macro-levels of sociotechnical care systems, and the transition from individual interests to collective interests.

Targeted gown and glove use to prevent Staphylococcus aureus acquisition in community-based nursing homes: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To test the feasibility of targeted gown and glove use by healthcare personnel caring for high-risk nursing-home residents to prevent Staphylococcus aureus acquisition in short-stay residents.

DESIGN

Uncontrolled clinical trial.

SETTING

This study was conducted in 2 community-based nursing homes in Maryland.

PARTICIPANTS

The study included 322 residents on mixed short- and long-stay units.

METHODS

During a 2-month baseline period, all residents had nose and inguinal fold swabs taken to estimate S. aureus acquisition. The intervention was iteratively developed using a participatory human factors engineering approach. During a 2-month intervention period, healthcare personnel wore gowns and gloves for high-risk care activities while caring for residents with wounds or medical devices, and S. aureus acquisition was measured again. Whole-genome sequencing was used to assess whether the acquisition represented resident-to-resident transmission.

RESULTS

Among short-stay residents, the methicillin-resistant S. aureus acquisition rate decreased from 11.9% during the baseline period to 3.6% during the intervention period (odds ratio [OR], 0.28; 95% CI, 0.08-0.92; P = .026). The methicillin-susceptible S. aureus acquisition rate went from 9.1% during the baseline period to 4.0% during the intervention period (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.12-1.42; P = .15). The S. aureus resident-to-resident transmission rate decreased from 5.9% during the baseline period to 0.8% during the intervention period.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted gown and glove use by healthcare personnel for high-risk care activities while caring for residents with wounds or medical devices, regardless of their S. aureus colonization status, is feasible and potentially decreases S. aureus acquisition and transmission in short-stay community-based nursing-home residents.

Healthcare workers' perspectives on participatory system dynamics modelling and simulation: designing safe and efficient hospital pharmacy dispensing systems together

With increasingly complex safety-critical systems like healthcare being developed and managed, there is a need for a tool that permits decision-makers to better understand the complexity, test various strategies and guide effective changes. System Dynamics (SD) modelling is an effective approach that can aid strategic decision-making in healthcare systems but has been underutilised partly due to the challenge of engaging healthcare stakeholders in the modelling process. This paper, therefore, investigates the applicability of a participatory SD approach based on healthcare workers' perspectives on ease of use (usability) and usefulness (utility). The study developed an interactive simulation dashboard platform which facilitated participatory simulation for exploring various hospital pharmacy staffing level arrangements and their impacts on interruptions, fatigue, workload, rework, productivity and safety. The findings reveal that participatory SD approach can enhance team learning by converging on a shared mental model, aid decision-making and identifying trade-offs. The implications of these findings are discussed as well as experience and lessons learned on modelling facilitation. Practitioner Summary: This paper reports the perspectives of healthcare workers, who were engaged with a participatory system dynamics modelling and simulation process for hospital pharmacy staffing level management. Evaluative feedback revealed that the participatory SD approach can be a valuable tool for participatory ergonomics by helping the participants gain a deeper understanding of the complex dynamic interactions between workload, rework, safety and efficiency. Abbreviations: SD: system dynamics; ETTO: efficiency-thoroughness trade-off.

Design for patient safety: a systems-based risk identification framework

Current risk identification practices applied to patient safety in healthcare are insufficient. The situation can be improved, however, by studying systems approaches broadly and successfully utilised in other safety-critical industries, such as aviation and chemical industries. To illustrate this, this paper first investigates current risk identification practices in the healthcare field, and then examines the potential of systems approaches. A systems-based approach, called the Risk Identification Framework (RID Framework), is then developed to enhance improvement in risk identification. Demonstrating the strengths of using multiple inputs and methods, the RID Framework helps to facilitate the proactive identification of new risks. In this study, the potential value of the RID Framework is discussed by examining its application and evaluation, as conducted in a real-world healthcare setting. Both the application and evaluation of the RID Framework indicate positive results, as well as the need for further research. Practitioner Summary: The findings in this study provide insights into how to make a better amalgamation of risk identification inputs to the safer design and more proactive risk management of healthcare delivery systems, which have been an increasing research interest amongst human factor professionals and ergonomists.