Boundary objects for institutional work across service ecosystems

From diagnosis to dialogue - reconsidering the DSM as a conversation piece in mental health care: a hypothesis and theory

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, abbreviated as the DSM, is one of mental health care's most commonly used classification systems. While the DSM has been successful in establishing a shared language for researching and communicating about mental distress, it has its limitations as an empirical compass. In the transformation of mental health care towards a system that is centered around shared decision-making, person-centered care, and personal recovery, the DSM is problematic as it promotes the disengagement of people with mental distress and is primarily a tool developed for professionals to communicate about patients instead of with patients. However, the mental health care system is set up in such a way that we cannot do without the DSM for the time being. In this paper, we aimed to describe the position and role the DSM may have in a mental health care system that is evolving from a medical paradigm to a more self-contained profession in which there is increased accommodation of other perspectives. First, our analysis highlights the DSM's potential as a boundary object in clinical practice, that could support a shared language between patients and professionals. Using the DSM as a conversation piece, a language accommodating diverse perspectives can be co-created. Second, we delve into why people with lived experience should be involved in co-designing spectra of distress. We propose an iterative design and test approach for designing DSM spectra of distress in co-creation with people with lived experience to prevent the development of 'average solutions' for 'ordinary people'. We conclude that transforming mental health care by reconsidering the DSM as a boundary object and conversation piece between activity systems could be a step in the right direction, shifting the power balance towards shared ownership in a participation era that fosters dialogue instead of diagnosis.

Multiple outcome interactions in healthcare systems: a participatory outcome mapping approach

Outcomes, which are the result state or condition from a process or intervention, are essential elements of healthcare system design and an important indicator of performance. They are included in well-known system analysis frameworks such as the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) and Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA). However, fewer practical approaches exist for understanding and communicating interactions among healthcare outcomes. This study applies a novel mapping method as a practical approach to collect, aggregate and visualise interrelations among multiple healthcare outcomes. Graphic facilitation mapping sessions with eleven healthcare providers and ten patients with chronic conditions were conducted. Participants created outcome interrelationship maps following a six-step process. Two outcome-based network visualisations were synthesised using network analysis. This outcome-based approach advances how we frame healthcare systems, focussing on accommodating multiple stakeholders' visions, understanding interrelations, and defining trade-offs. This practical approach may complement frameworks such as SEIPS and CWA. Practitioner summary: The presented outcome-based mapping approach can facilitate the understanding of outcomes as part of the interrelated healthcare system. The approach allows the discussion and integration of different stakeholders' outcome priorities to identify critical elements and better inform the development or adaptation of healthcare systems. Abbreviations: SEIPS: engineering initiative for patient safety; CWA: cognitive work analysis; HFE: human factors and ergonomics; AH: abstraction hierarchy; POTS: postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome; DRM: design research methodology; FA2: forceAtlas2; HbA1c: glycated haemoglobin; NHS: National Health Service; UK: United Kingdom.

Boundary Objects as Dialogical Learning Accelerators for Social Change in Design for Health: Systematic Review

Background

Boundary objects can add value for innovative design and implementation research in health care through their organizational focus and the dynamic structure between ill-structured and tailored use. However, when innovation is approached as a boundary object, more attention will need to be paid to the preimplementation phase. Research and design thinking pay attention to the preimplementation stage but do not have a social or organizational focus per se. The integration of boundary objects in design methodologies can provide a more social and organizational focus in innovative design projects by mapping out the mechanisms that occur at boundaries during design. Four dialogical learning mechanisms that can be triggered at boundaries have been described in the literature: identification, coordination, reflection, and transformation. These mechanisms seem suitable for integration in innovative design research on health.

Objective

Focusing on innovation in health, this study aims to find out whether the different learning mechanisms can be linked to studies on health innovation that mention boundary objects as a concept and assess whether the related mechanisms provide insight into the stage of the design and implementation or change process.

Methods

The following 6 databases were searched for relevant abstracts: PubMed, Scopus, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, and Embase. These databases cover a wide range of published studies in the field of health.

Results

Our initial search yielded 3102 records; after removing the duplicates, 2186 (70.47%) records were screened on the title and abstract, and 25 (0.81%) papers were included; of the 13 papers where we identified 1 mechanism, 5 (38%) described an innovation or innovative project, and of the 12 papers where we identified more mechanisms, 9 (75%) described the development or implementation of an innovation. The reflective mechanism was not identified solely but was present in papers describing a more successful development or implementation project of innovation. In these papers, the predetermined goals were achieved, and the process of integration was relatively smoother.

Conclusions

The concept of boundary objects has found its way into health care. Although the idea of a boundary object was introduced to describe how specific artifacts can fulfill a bridging function between different sociocultural sites and thus have a social focus, the focus in the included papers was often on the boundary object itself rather than the social effect. The reflection and transformation mechanisms were underrepresented in the included studies but based on the findings in this review, pursuing to trigger the reflective mechanism in design, development, and implementation projects can lead to a more fluid and smooth integration of innovation into practice.