Advertisement

Integrating Two Sociotechnical Theories to Develop a Suitable Analytic Framework to Assess the Development of a Hospital Secure Messaging and Communication Platform

  • Imran Muhammad
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
Chapter
Part of the Healthcare Delivery in the Information Age book series (Healthcare Delivery Inform. Age)

Abstract

This chapter seeks to develop a conceptual framework for the theoretical underpinning for a larger study and to answer the key research question: How can ICT (information communication technology) solutions ameliorate the current challenges regarding communication inefficiencies within healthcare? Given the identified complexities, it was realised a sufficiently robust theoretical framework was essential; hence, this study has served to develop a theoretical research framework by integrating two sociotechnical theories, namely, actor-network theory and activity theory, to investigate the possibility of designing a bespoke ICT solution for a specific context at one of the largest private hospitals in Australia.

Keywords

Secure messaging Information communication technologies Hospital communication Actor-network theory Activity theory 

References

  1. Alexander, P. M., & Silvis, E. (2014). Towards extending actor-network theory with a graphical syntax for information systems research. Information Research, 19(2), paper 617.Google Scholar
  2. Altman, R. B. (1997). Informatics in the care of patients: Ten notable challenges. The Western Journal of Medicine, 166(2), 118–122.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Ammenwerth, E., Gräber, S., Herrmann, G., Bürkle, T., & König, J. (2003). Evaluation of health information systems-problems and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 71(2–3), 125–135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, C., Eldabi, T., Paul, R., & Pouloudi, A. (2001). Investigating integrated socio-technical approaches to health informatics (pp. 10–pp SRC – GoogleScholar).Google Scholar
  5. Basch, P. (2005). Electronic health records and the national health information network: Affordable, adoptable, and ready for prime time? Annals of Internal Medicine, 143(3), 227–228.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, M., Aarts, J., & van der Lei, J. (2003). ICT in health care: Sociotechnical approaches. Methods of Information in Medicine, 42(4), 297–301.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Berler, A., Pavlopulous, S., & Koutsouris, D. (2005). Using key performance indicators and knoweldge management tools. IEEE Trans Inf Tech Biomed, 9(2), 184–192.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, S., Mathiassen, L., & Nilsson, A. (2008). Contextual dynamics during health information systems implementation: An event-based actor-network approach. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(6), 614–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coiera, E. (2006). Communication systems in healthcare. Clinical Biochemist Reviews, 27(2), 89–98.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Coiera, E. (2011). Do we need a national electronic summary care record? The Medical Journal of Australia, 194(2), 90–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Crawford, K., & Hasan, H. (2006). Demonstrations of the activity theory framework for research in information systems. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 13, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cresswell, K., Worth, A., & Sheikh, A. (2011). Implementing and adopting electronic health record systems: How actor-network theory can support evaluation. Clinical Governance: An International Journal, 16(4), 320–336.  https://doi.org/10.1108/14777271111175369 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cresswell, K. M., Worth, A., & Sheikh, A. (2010). Actor-network theory and its role in understanding the implementation of information technology developments in healthcare. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 10, 67.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-10-67
  14. Dansky, K. H., Thompson, D., & Sanner, T. (2006). A framework for evaluating eHealth research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 29(4), 397–404.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Darbyshire, P. (2004). Rage against the machine? Journal of Clinical Nursing, 13, 17–25.Google Scholar
  16. DesRoches, C. M., Campbell, E. G., Rao, S. R., Donelan, K., Ferris, T. G., Jha, A., et al. (2008). Electronic health records in ambulatory care – A national survey of physicians. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(1), 50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0802005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dowding, D., Mitchell, N., Randell, R., Foster, R., Lattimer, V., & Thompson, C. (2009). Nurses’ use of computerised clinical decision support systems: A case site analysis. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18(8), 1159–1167.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Edwards, P. J., Moloney, K. P., Jacko, J. A., & Sainfort, F. (2008). Evaluating usability of a commercial electronic health record: A case study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(10), 718–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Orienta-Konsultit: Helsinki.Google Scholar
  20. Engeström, Y. (1999). Outline of three generations of activity theory. Available at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/research/liw/resources/Models%20and%20principles%20of%20Activity%20Theory.pdf
  21. Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fjeld, M., Lauche, K., Bichsel, M., et al. (2002). Physical and virtual tools: Activity theory applied to the design of groupware, a special issue of computer supported cooperative work (CSCW): Activity theory and the practice of design. In B. A. Nardi & D. F. Redmiles (Eds.), Computer supported cooperative work (Vol. 11, pp. 153–180).Google Scholar
  23. Free, C., Phillips, G., Watson, L., Galli, L., Felix, L., Edwards, P., & Haines, A. (2013). The effectiveness of mobile-health technologies to improve health care service delivery processes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine, 10(1), e1001363.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenhalgh, T., & Stones, R. (2010). Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: Strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Social Science & Medicine (1982), 70(9), 1285–1294.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grisot, M., & Vassilakopoulou, P. (2011). Challenges in institutionalising electronic platforms for patient? Healthcare provider communication. International Journal of Electronic Healthcare, 6(2–4), 138–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Häkkinen, H., & Korpela, M. (2007). A participatory assessment of IS integration needs in maternity clinics using activity theory. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76, 843–849.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hall, L. M., Ferguson-Paré, M., Peter, E., White, D., Besner, J., Chisholm, A., & Mildon, B. (2010). Going blank: Factors contributing to interruptions to nurses’ work and related outcomes. Journal of Nursing Management, 18(8), 1040–1047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanseth, O., Aanestad, M., & Berg, M. (2004). Guest editors’ introduction: Actor-network theory and information systems. What’s so special? Information Technology & People, 17(2), 116–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harvey, M. J., & Harvey, M. G. (2014). Privacy and security issues for mobile health platforms. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(7), 1305–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hasan, H., & Banna, S. (2010). The unit of analysis in IS theory: The case for activity. In The Fifth Biennial ANU Workshop on Information Systems Foundations. Canberra, Australia: ANU, pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Hashim, N., & Jones, M. L. (2007). Activity theory: A framework for qualitative analysis. In 4th International Qualitative Research Convention (QRC), Malaysia.Google Scholar
  32. Iyamu, T., & Sekgweleo, T. (2013). Information systems and actor-network theory analysis. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 5(3), 1–11.  https://doi.org/10.4018/jantti.2013070101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaghan, W., & Bowker, G. (2001). Out of machine age?: Complexity, sociotechnical systems and actor network theory. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(1), 253–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. A. (2006). Acting with technology: Activity theory and interaction design. Cambridge: MIT Press. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=qYj6AQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=activity+theory+and+actor+network+theory&ots=cJN7MIKNjN&sig=rUiRTiKLw-JxfmMw_gn6fEQhu10. Accessed March 28, 2016.
  35. Kukafka, R., Johnson, S. B., Linfante, A., & Allegrante, J. P. (2003). Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: A systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 36(3), 218–227.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kuutti, K. (1995). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Lau, F. (2007). A proposed benefits evaluation framework for health information systems in Canada. Healthcare Quaterly, 10(1), 112–116.Google Scholar
  39. Lau, F., Kuziemsky, C., Price, M., & Gardner, J. (2010). A review on systematic reviews of health information system studies. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(6), 637–645.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2010.004838 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 1–14). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Law, John (2004). After method: mess in social science research. London New York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415341752.Google Scholar
  43. Leontiev, A. N. (2009). Problems of the development of mind. Kettering: Marxists Internet Archive.Google Scholar
  44. McLean, C., & Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the production of actor network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41(3), 493–519.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00442.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Meijden, M. J. V. D., Tange, H. J., Troost, J., & Hasman, A. (2003). Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: A literature review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 10(3), 235–243.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Miettinen, R. (1999). The riddle of things: Activity theory and actor network theory as approaches to studying innovations. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(3), 170–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Muhammad, I., Teoh, S. Y., & Wickramasinghe, N. (2012). Why using actor network theory (ANT) can help to understand the personally controlled electronic health record (PCEHR) in Australia. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), 4(2), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mutch, A. (2002). Actors and networks or agents and structures: Towards a realist view of information systems. Organization, 9(3), 477–496.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135050840293013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Nardi, B. A. (1996). Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  50. Ponemon Institute. (2014). The Imprivata report on the economic impact of inefficient communications in healthcare, independent research report conducted by Ponemon Institute LLC.Google Scholar
  51. Protti, D. & Smit, C., (2006). The Netherlands: Another European country where GPs have been using EMRs for over twenty years. Healthcare Information Management & Communications, 30(3). Available at: http://www.healthcareimc.com/bcovers/PDFS/TheNetherlands.pdf
  52. Sadeghi, P., Andreev, P., Benyoucef, M., et al. (2014). Activity theory driven system analysis of complex healthcare processes. In Proceedings of Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems ECIS’2014 Tel Aviv.Google Scholar
  53. Sharma, R., Southon, G., & Yetton, P. (1999). Successful IS innovation: The contingent contributions of innovation characteristics and implementation process. Journal of Information Technology, 14(1), 53–68.  https://doi.org/10.1080/026839699344746 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Singleton, V., & Michael, M. (1993). Actor-networks and ambivalence: General practitioners in the UK cervical screening programme. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 227–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, A. (2012). Cell Internet Use 2012. Pew Research Internet Project. Retrieved January 20, 2015, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2012/06/26/cell-internet-use-2012/
  56. Stevenson, J., Nilsson, G., Petersson, G., & Johanssson, P. (2010). Nurses’ experience of using electronic patient records in everyday practice in acute/inpatient ward settings: A literature review. Health Informatics Journal, 16(1), 63–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Tatnall, A., & Gilding, A. (2005). Actor-network theory in information systems research.Google Scholar
  58. Varshney, U. (2014). Mobile health: Four emerging themes of research. Decision Support Systems, 66, 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Viitanen, J., Hypponen, H., Laaveri, T., Vanska, J., Reponen, J., & Winblad, I. (2011). National questionnaire study on clinical ICT systems proofs: Physicians suffer from poor usability. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 80(10), 708–725.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Vimarlund, V., & Timpka, T. (2002). Design participation as insurance: Risk management and end-user participation in the development of information system in healthcare organizations. Methods of Information in Medicine, 41(1), 76–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Vogel, D., Viehland, D., Wickramasinghe, N., & Mula, J. M. (2013). Mobile health. Electronic Markets, 23(1), 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Walsham, G. (1997). Actor-network theory and IS research: Current status and future prospects. Information Systems and Qualitative Research, 466, 80.Google Scholar
  64. Williams-Jones, B., & Graham, J. E. (2003). Actor-network theory: A tool to support ethical analysis of commercial genetic testing. New Genetics and Society, 22(3), 271–296.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu, R. C., Lo, V., Morra, D., Wong, B. M., Sargeant, R., Locke, K., et al. (2013). The intended and unintended consequences of communication systems on general internal medicine inpatient care delivery: A prospective observational case study of five teaching hospitals. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 20(4), 766–777.  https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001160 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Yin, R. 2010 Case Study Research Sage, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  67. Yusof, M. M., Papazafeiropoulou, A., Paul, R. J., & Stergioulas, L. K. (2008). Investigating evaluation frameworks for health information systems. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(6), 377–385.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.200 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Imran Muhammad
    • 1
    • 2
  • Nilmini Wickramasinghe
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Deakin UniversityBurwoodAustralia
  2. 2.Epworth HealthCareRichmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations