Advertisement

Health IT-Enabled Care Coordination and Redesign in Ambulatory Care

  • Jonathan S. WaldEmail author
  • Laurie Novak
Chapter
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

Abstract

In this chapter, we present and discuss findings from a study funded by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to examine the workflow impact of introducing new technology, My Health Team at Vanderbilt (MHTAV), into primary care clinics to improve care coordination for patients with hypertension and diabetes. The goal of the study was to assess the alignment between health information technology (IT) and clinical workflow during the implementation of MHTAV. Our primary research question was: what is the workflow impact of implementing health IT-enabled care coordination within six ambulatory primary care clinics? We approached this question using a human factors and sociotechnical framework. Our aim was to help to fill the evidence gap regarding how health IT adoption impacts workflow, and vice versa.

Keywords

Workflow Care coordination Implementation Qualitative research Health Information Technology Mixed methods Practice redesign Ambulatory care Chronic Condition Management Diabetes 

References

  1. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, et al. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(Suppl 1):S69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumenthal D. Implementation of the federal health information technology initiative. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(25):2426–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carayon P. The balance theory and the work system model. Twenty years later. Int J Hum Comput Interac. 2009;25:313–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT, et al. Work system design for patient safety: THE SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(Suppl 1):i50–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carayon P, Karsh BT, Cartmill R. Incorporating health information technology into workflow redesign—summary report prepared by the Center for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, under contract no. HHSA 290-2008-10036C. Rockville: Quality AfHRa; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. Carayon P, Cartmill R, Hoonakker P, et al. Human factors analysis of workflow in health information technology implementation. In: Carayon P, editor. Handbook of human factors and ergonomics in patient safety. 2nd ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2012. p. 507–21.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland P, Scholes J. Soft systems methodology in action. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1999.Google Scholar
  8. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorr D, Bonner LM, Cohen AN, et al. Informatics systems to promote improved care for chronic illness: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(2):156–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, et al. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–26. PMID: 15230939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holden RJ, Brown RL, Alper SJ, et al. That’s nice, but what does IT do? Evaluating the impact of bar coded medication administration by measuring changes in the process of care. Int J Ind Ergon. 2011;41(4):370–9. PMID: 21686318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holden RJ, Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Faye H, et al. Automation and adaptation: nurses’ problem-solving behavior following the implementation of bar coded medication administration technology. Cogn Technol Work. 2013;15(3):283–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karsh B, Holden R, Alper S, et al. A human factors engineering paradigm for patient safety: designing to support the performance of the healthcare professional. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006;15(Suppl 1):i59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Novak LL. Improving health IT through understanding the cultural production of safety in clinical settings. In: Nohr C, Aarts J, editors. Information technology in health care: Sociotechnical approaches 2010—from safe systems to patient safety. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2010.Google Scholar
  15. Novak LL, Anders SH, Gadd CS, et al. Mediation of adoption and use: a key strategy for mitigating unintended consequences of health IT implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(6):1043–9.  https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000575.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
  17. Shepherd A. Hierarchical task analysis. London: Taylor and Francis; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Unertl KM, Novak LL, Johnson KB, et al. Traversing the many paths of workflow research: developing a conceptual framework of workflow terminology through a systematic literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(3):265–73. PMID: 20442143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InterSystems CorporationCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations