On-line health companion contact among chronically ill in the Netherlands

A health companion is a patient who supports another patient or patient group with a similar health condition. Health companions deliver more and more support by the Internet. However, little is known about the characteristics of the users, their motivation, type of technology used and effects on health and the healthcare delivery process. The objective of the paper is to understand motivation, technology and effects of on-line health companion contact in the Netherlands concerning chronic diseases (DBM, COPD, CHF, CRD, CMD). The On-line Health Companion Contact Model was created to frame the research process. An extensive on-line questionnaire was taken from patients with various chronic disorders and using on-line health companion contact to obtain quantitative and qualitative data. Obtaining information was found the key motivation for applying on-line health companion contact and several characteristics play a role in the selection to use a specific website, including: closed access; the topics discussed; the easy use; the type of users and a clear structure. Respondents prefer website facilitated by a forum or social networking site. Other factors are the possibility to share experiences with other patients, to find recognition and understanding and to meet new people. These positive aspects are of greater importance than the perceived barriers including privacy concerns, negative stories and whining other users and concerns regarding the quality of information. On-line health companion contact can increase the quality of life and self-management because respondents perceived to be better informed, better able to accept their disease, better deal with their situation and to receive an increased amount of social support

Is Canada ready for patient accessible electronic health records? A national scan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Access to personal health information through the electronic health record (EHR) is an innovative means to enable people to be active participants in their own health care. Currently this is not an available option for consumers of health. The absence of a key technology, the EHR, is a significant obstacle to providing patient accessible electronic records. To assess the readiness for the implementation and adoption of EHRs in Canada, a national scan was conducted to determine organizational readiness and willingness for patient accessible electronic records.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A survey was conducted of Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) of Canadian public and acute care hospitals.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two hundred thirteen emails were sent to CEOs of Canadian general and acute care hospitals, with a 39% response rate. Over half (54.2%) of hospitals had some sort of EHR, but few had a record that was predominately electronic. Financial resources were identified as the most important barrier to providing patients access to their EHR and there was a divergence in perceptions from healthcare providers and what they thought patients would want in terms of access to the EHR, with providers being less willing to provide access and patients desire for greater access to the full record.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>As the use of EHRs becomes more commonplace, organizations should explore the possibility of responding to patient needs for clinical information by providing access to their EHR. The best way to achieve this is still being debated.</p

Evolution of Wenger's concept of community of practice

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In the experience of health professionals, it appears that interacting with peers in the workplace fosters learning and information sharing. Informal groups and networks present good opportunities for information exchange. Communities of practice (CoPs), which have been described by Wenger and others as a type of informal learning organization, have received increasing attention in the health care sector; however, the lack of uniform operating definitions of CoPs has resulted in considerable variation in the structure and function of these groups, making it difficult to evaluate their effectiveness.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To critique the evolution of the CoP concept as based on the germinal work by Wenger and colleagues published between 1991 and 2002.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>CoP was originally developed to provide a template for examining the learning that happens among practitioners in a social environment, but over the years there have been important divergences in the focus of the concept. Lave and Wenger's earliest publication (1991) centred on the interactions between novices and experts, and the process by which newcomers create a professional identity. In the 1998 book, the focus had shifted to personal growth and the trajectory of individuals' participation within a group (i.e., peripheral versus core participation). The focus then changed again in 2002 when CoP was applied as a managerial tool for improving an organization's competitiveness.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>The different interpretations of CoP make it challenging to apply the concept or to take full advantage of the benefits that CoP groups may offer. The tension between satisfying individuals' needs for personal growth and empowerment versus an organization's bottom line is perhaps the most contentious of the issues that make CoPs difficult to cultivate. Since CoP is still an evolving concept, we recommend focusing on optimizing specific characteristics of the concept, such as support for members interacting with each other, sharing knowledge, and building a sense of belonging within networks/teams/groups. Interventions that facilitate relationship building among members and that promote knowledge exchange may be useful for optimizing the function of these groups.</p

Use of communities of practice in business and health care sectors: A systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Since being identified as a concept for understanding knowledge sharing, management, and creation, communities of practice (CoPs) have become increasingly popular within the health sector. The CoP concept has been used in the business sector for over 20 years, but the use of CoPs in the health sector has been limited in comparison.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>First, we examined how CoPs were defined and used in these two sectors. Second, we evaluated the evidence of effectiveness on the health sector CoPs for improving the uptake of best practices and mentoring new practitioners.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a search of electronic databases in the business, health, and education sectors, and a hand search of key journals for primary studies on CoP groups. Our research synthesis for the first objective focused on three areas: the authors' interpretations of the CoP concept, the key characteristics of CoP groups, and the common elements of CoP groups. To examine the evidence on the effectiveness of CoPs in the health sector, we identified articles that evaluated CoPs for improving health professional performance, health care organizational performance, professional mentoring, and/or patient outcome; and used experimental, quasi-experimental, or observational designs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The structure of CoP groups varied greatly, ranging from voluntary informal networks to work-supported formal education sessions, and from apprentice training to multidisciplinary, multi-site project teams. Four characteristics were identified from CoP groups: social interaction among members, knowledge sharing, knowledge creation, and identity building; however, these were not consistently present in all CoPs. There was also a lack of clarity in the responsibilities of CoP facilitators and how power dynamics should be handled within a CoP group. We did not find any paper in the health sector that met the eligibility criteria for the quantitative analysis, and so the effectiveness of CoP in this sector remained unclear.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is no dominant trend in how the CoP concept is operationalized in the business and health sectors; hence, it is challenging to define the parameters of CoP groups. This may be one of the reasons for the lack of studies on the effectiveness of CoPs in the health sector. In order to improve the usefulness of the CoP concept in the development of groups and teams, further research will be needed to clarify the extent to which the four characteristics of CoPs are present in the mature and emergent groups, the expectations of facilitators and other participants, and the power relationship within CoPs.</p

A knowledge-based taxonomy of critical factors for adopting electronic health record systems by physicians: a systematic literature review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The health care sector is an area of social and economic interest in several countries; therefore, there have been lots of efforts in the use of electronic health records. Nevertheless, there is evidence suggesting that these systems have not been adopted as it was expected, and although there are some proposals to support their adoption, the proposed support is not by means of information and communication technology which can provide automatic tools of support. The aim of this study is to identify the critical adoption factors for electronic health records by physicians and to use them as a guide to support their adoption process automatically.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This paper presents, based on the PRISMA statement, a systematic literature review in electronic databases with adoption studies of electronic health records published in English. Software applications that manage and process the data in the electronic health record have been considered, i.e.: computerized physician prescription, electronic medical records, and electronic capture of clinical data. Our review was conducted with the purpose of obtaining a taxonomy of the physicians main barriers for adopting electronic health records, that can be addressed by means of information and communication technology; in particular with the information technology roles of the knowledge management processes. Which take us to the question that we want to address in this work: "What are the critical adoption factors of electronic health records that can be supported by information and communication technology?". Reports from eight databases covering electronic health records adoption studies in the medical domain, in particular those focused on physicians, were analyzed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The review identifies two main issues: 1) a knowledge-based classification of critical factors for adopting electronic health records by physicians; and 2) the definition of a base for the design of a conceptual framework for supporting the design of knowledge-based systems, to assist the adoption process of electronic health records in an automatic fashion. From our review, six critical adoption factors have been identified: user attitude towards information systems, workflow impact, interoperability, technical support, communication among users, and expert support. The main limitation of the taxonomy is the different impact of the adoption factors of electronic health records reported by some studies depending on the type of practice, setting, or attention level; however, these features are a determinant aspect with regard to the adoption rate for the latter rather than the presence of a specific critical adoption factor.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The critical adoption factors established here provide a sound theoretical basis for research to understand, support, and facilitate the adoption of electronic health records to physicians in benefit of patients.</p

A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care

Background: understanding how new clinical techniques, technologies and other complex interventions become normalized in practice is important to researchers, clinicians, health service managers and policy-makers. This paper presents a model of the normalization of complex interventions.Methods: between 1995 and 2005 multiple qualitative studies were undertaken. These examined: professional-patient relationships; changing patterns of care; the development, evaluation and implementation of telemedicine and related informatics systems; and the production and utilization of evidence for practice. Data from these studies were subjected to (i) formative re-analysis, leading to sets of analytic propositions; and to (ii) a summative analysis that aimed to build a robust conceptual model of the normalization of complex interventions in health care.Results: a normalization process model that enables analysis of the conditions necessary to support the introduction of complex interventions is presented. The model is defined by four constructs: interactional workability; relational integration; skill set workability and contextual integration. This model can be used to understand the normalization potential of new techniques and technologies in healthcare settingsConclusion: the normalization process model has face validity in (i) assessing the potential for complex interventions to become routinely embedded in everyday clinical work, and (ii) evaluating the factors that promote or inhibit their success and failure in practic