89 research outputs found

    Challenges in making standardisation work in healthcare: lessons from a qualitative interview study of a line-labelling policy in a UK region.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE:To identify and learn from efforts to design and implement a standardised policy for labelling of invasive tubing and lines across a regional health system. DESIGN:Single case study involving qualitative interviews and documentary analysis. SETTING:A devolved health system in the UK National Health Service (NHS). PARTICIPANTS:NHS staff (n=10) and policy-makers (n=8) who were involved in the design and/or implementation of the standardised policy. RESULTS:Though standardising labelling of invasive tubing and lines was initially seen as a common-sense technical change, challenges during the process of developing and implementing the policy were multiple and sociotechnical in nature. Major challenges related to defining the problem and the solution, limited sustained engagement with stakeholders and users, prototyping/piloting of the solution, and planning for implementation. Some frontline staff remained unconvinced of the need for or value of the policy, since they either did not believe that there was a problem or did not agree that standardised labelling was the right solution. Mundane practical issues such authorisation and resourcing, supply chains for labels, the need to restructure work practices to accommodate the new standard, and the physical features of the labels in specific clinical settings all had important impacts. CONCLUSIONS:Newly standardised tools and practices have to fit within a system of pre-existing norms, practices and procedures. We identified a number of practical, social and cultural challenges when designing and implementing a standardised policy in a regional healthcare system. Taking account of both sociocultural and technical aspects of standardisation, combined with systems thinking, could lead to more effective implementation and increase acceptability and usability of new standards

    What can Safety Cases offer for patient safety? A multisite case study

    Get PDF
    Background The Safety Case is a regulatory technique that requires organisations to demonstrate to regulators that they have systematically identified hazards in their systems and reduced risks to being as low as reasonably practicable. It is used in several high-risk sectors, but only in a very limited way in healthcare. We examined the first documented attempt to apply the Safety Case methodology to clinical pathways. Methods Data are drawn from a mixed-methods evaluation of the Safer Clinical Systems programme. The development of a Safety Case for a defined clinical pathway was a centrepiece of the programme. We base our analysis on 143 interviews covering all aspects of the programme and on analysis of 13 Safety Cases produced by clinical teams. Results The principles behind a proactive, systematic approach to identifying and controlling risk that could be curated in a single document were broadly welcomed by participants, but was not straightforward to deliver. Compiling Safety Cases helped teams to identify safety hazards in clinical pathways, some of which had been previously occluded. However, the work of compiling Safety Cases was demanding of scarce skill and resource. Not all problems identified through proactive methods were tractable to the efforts of front-line staff. Some persistent hazards, originating from institutional and organisational vulnerabilities, appeared also to be out of the scope of control of even the board level of organisations. A particular dilemma for organisational senior leadership was whether to prioritise fixing the risks proactively identified in Safety Cases over other pressing issues, including those that had already resulted in harm. Conclusions The Safety Case approach was recognised by those involved in the Safer Clinical Systems programme as having potential value. However, it is also fraught with challenge, highlighting the limitations of efforts to transfer safety management practices to healthcare from other sectors

    Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study

    Get PDF
    Abstract: Background: Crowdsourcing engages the help of large numbers of people in tasks, activities or projects, usually via the internet. One application of crowdsourcing is the screening of citations for inclusion in a systematic review. There is evidence that a ‘Crowd’ of non-specialists can reliably identify quantitative studies, such as randomized controlled trials, through the assessment of study titles and abstracts. In this feasibility study, we investigated crowd performance of an online, topic-based citation-screening task, assessing titles and abstracts for inclusion in a single mixed-studies systematic review. Methods: This study was embedded within a mixed studies systematic review of maternity care, exploring the effects of training healthcare professionals in intrapartum cardiotocography. Citation-screening was undertaken via Cochrane Crowd, an online citizen science platform enabling volunteers to contribute to a range of tasks identifying evidence in health and healthcare. Contributors were recruited from users registered with Cochrane Crowd. Following completion of task-specific online training, the crowd and the review team independently screened 9546 titles and abstracts. The screening task was subsequently repeated with a new crowd following minor changes to the crowd agreement algorithm based on findings from the first screening task. We assessed the crowd decisions against the review team categorizations (the ‘gold standard’), measuring sensitivity, specificity, time and task engagement. Results: Seventy-eight crowd contributors completed the first screening task. Sensitivity (the crowd’s ability to correctly identify studies included within the review) was 84% (N = 42/50), and specificity (the crowd’s ability to correctly identify excluded studies) was 99% (N = 9373/9493). Task completion was 33 h for the crowd and 410 h for the review team; mean time to classify each record was 6.06 s for each crowd participant and 3.96 s for review team members. Replicating this task with 85 new contributors and an altered agreement algorithm found 94% sensitivity (N = 48/50) and 98% specificity (N = 9348/9493). Contributors reported positive experiences of the task. Conclusion: It might be feasible to recruit and train a crowd to accurately perform topic-based citation-screening for mixed studies systematic reviews, though resource expended on the necessary customised training required should be factored in. In the face of long review production times, crowd screening may enable a more time-efficient conduct of reviews, with minimal reduction of citation-screening accuracy, but further research is needed

    Systematic Literature Reviews: An Introduction

    No full text
    International audienceSystematic literature reviews (SRs) are a way of synthesising scientific evidence to answer a particular research question in a way that is transparent and reproducible, while seeking to include all published evidence on the topic and appraising the quality of this evidence. SRs have become a major methodology in disciplines such as public policy research and health sciences. Some have advocated that design research should adopt the method. However, little guidance is available. This paper provides an overview of the SR method, based on the literature in health sciences. Then, the rationale for SRs in design research is explored, and four recent examples of SRs in design research are analysed to illustrate current practice. Foreseen challenges in taking forward the SR method in design research are highlighted, and directions for developing a SR method for design research are proposed. It is concluded that SRs hold potential for design research and could help us in addressing some important issues, but work is needed to define what review methods are appropriate for each type of research question in design research, and to adapt guidance to our own needs and specificities

    Ecoconception des bĂątiments : pratiques actuelles et freins Ă  l'utilisation des outils d'Ă©coconception - Une Ă©tude en France

    No full text
    National audienceAlors que l'environnement prend une place croissante dans les stratégies d'entreprise et que la réglementation se fait plus exigeante, l'écoconception n'est pas encore une pratique généralisée. En particulier, les outils d'écoconception, largement développés, ne sont pas aussi largement diffusés qu'on pourrait l'attendre. Cette situation est notamment vraie dans le secteur du bùtiment. Cette étude vise à identifier les raisons de cette faible utilisation des outils d'écoconception disponibles. Pour y parvenir, deux séries d'entretiens de professionnels sont réalisées

    Evaluating engineering design methods: taking inspiration from software engineering and the health sciences

    No full text
    International audienceEngineering design methods are typically evaluated via case studies, surveys, and experiments. Meanwhile, domains such as the health sciences as well as software engineering have developed further powerful evaluation approaches. The objective of this paper is to show how evaluation approaches from the health sciences and software engineering might further the evaluation of engineering design methods. We survey these approaches and show which approaches could be transferred to the evaluation of engineering design methods
    • 

    corecore