Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

User-Designer Relations in Technology Production: The Development and Evaluation of an ‘Animator’ Tool to Facilitate User Involvement in the Development of Electronic Health Records

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Configuring User-Designer Relations

Part of the book series: Computer Supported Cooperative Work ((CSCW))

  • 515 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This is not to dismiss the need for more focused PD methods at later stages, indeed, the initial user engagement maybe seen as feeding into later PD processes. User engagement should be throughout the life of a project, not just certain stages. If the user engagement is missing at the beginning of a project it may not be possible to repair the situation in light of later user engagement. Conversely, user engagement needs to be maintained towards the end of a project, rather than be replaced by proxies and user representatives where the benefits of initial user engagement can be ‘lost’. There is a need for a more even approach to user engagement, and different types of such engagement, including PD-type approaches throughout the life of a project (Martin et al. 2005, 2008).

  2. 2.

    The County Durham & Darlington Electronic Health Record Project (DuDEHR), led by the Health Authority in collaboration with the Sowerby Centre for Health Informatics at the University of Newcastle (SCHIN) and a health care software supplier Eclipsys (now part of I-Soft), was one of the four pan-community demonstrators. The team involved in the Demonstrator project included Sarah Bell, Nick Booth, Andrew Izon, K. Neil Jenkings, Judy Kohannajad, Jasmin Latiff, Mike Martin, Paul Morgan and the IT team at SCHIN. The Animator storyboard was developed by Mike Martin. Special thanks go to Andrew Thompson.

  3. 3.

    The terms ‘primary care’ and ‘secondary care’ in the context of the UK NHS are used here as referring to: primary health care as a general practitioner or other non-hospital-based health professional; secondary health care as care provided by hospital medical specialists or staff members; tertiary health care being specialist hospitals.

  4. 4.

    National Service Frameworks are formal, long-term strategies for improving specific areas of care with set goals and set time frames. They incorporate national standards and identify key interventions for a defined service or care group.

References

  • Bates, D.W. (2002). The Quality Case for Information Technology in Healthcare. BMCMedical Informatics and Decision Making, 2(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, M., Frankland, J., Thomas, M. and Robson, K. (2000).Focus Groups in Social Research. Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braverman, H. (1974). Labour and Monopoly Capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth Century.Monthly Review Press, 192-5. Reprinted inThe Social Shaping of Technology, MacKenzie, D. and J. Wajcman (1985) Buckinghan, Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buscher, M., Eriksen, M.A., Kristensen, J.F. and Mogensen, P.H. (2004) Ways of grounding imagination.Proceedings PDC (Participatory Design Conference), Toronto, Ontario, Canada, July 27-31, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, M. (2006a). ‘Will connecting for health deliver its promises?’British Medical Journal, 332, 599–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, M. (2006b). Keeping the NHS electronic spine on track.British Medical Journal, 332, 656–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyke, P. (2003). Healthy connectionsPublic Finance 2003; Sept. 24–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goorman, E. and Berg, M. (2000). Modelling nursing activities: Electronic patients records and their discontents.Nursing Inquiry, 7, 3–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M. and Slack, M. (2003). Making a case in medical work: Implications for the electronic medical record.Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12(3), 241–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendy, J., Reeves, B.C., Fulop, N., Hutchings, A. and Masseria, C. (2005). Challenges to implementing the national programme for information technology (NPfIT): A qualitative study.British Medical Journal, 331, 331–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helleso, R. and Ruland, C.M. (2001). Developing a module for nursing documentation integrated in the electronic patient record.Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 799–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humber, M. (2004). National programme for information technology – editorial.British Medical Journal, 328, 1145–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkings, K.N. (2007). Implementation, change management and benefit realization: Investigating the utility of ethnographically enriched process maps.Health Informatics Journal, 13, 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J. (1993). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups.British Medical Journal, 311, 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between participants.Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapinsky, S.E., Weshler, S., Mehta, S., Varkul, M. and Hallet, D. (2001). Handheld computers in critical care.Critical Care, 5(4), 227–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., Rouncefield, M., O’Neill, J., Hartswood, M. and Randall, D. (2005). Timing in the art of integration: ‘That’s how the bastille got stormed’. InProceedings of ACM Group ’05, November 6–9th, Florida, USA, pp. 313–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., Mariani, J. and Rouncefield, M. (2008). Practicalities of participation: Stakeholder involvement in an electronic health records (EHR) project. In: Voss, A., Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., Slack, R. and Buscher, M. (eds.),Configuring User-Designer Relations: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Springer, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D.L. (1997).Focus Groups as Qualitative Research (2nd ed.). Sage, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (1998). Information for health: An information strategy for the modern NHS 1998–2005. NHS Executive.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2001). NHS information authority – ERDIP: Evaluation of Electronic Patient Record Projects. January, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2002). Delivering 21st Century IT support for the NHS, London, DOH.

    Google Scholar 

  • NHS. (2006).Connecting for Health http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/ (accessed May 2006).

  • Pope, C., Ziebland, S. and Mays, N. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Analysing qualitative data.British Medical Journal, 320, 114–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, J. (2004). Changes must involve clinicians and show value to patient care.British Medical Journal, 328, 1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, A. (2005). Respecifying the study of social order – Garfinkel’s transition from theoretical concepualization to practice in details. In: H. Garfinkel (ed.),Seeing Sociologically. Paradigm Boulder, Colorado.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, P. (2005). How do we set the records straightBritish Medical Journal, 330, 315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J., Randall, T., Vogt, T.G., Kaiser, T.M. and Hsu, J. (2005). Permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study.British Medical Journal, 331, 1313–1316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sellen, A. and Harper, R. (2002).The Myth of the Paperless Office. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, I.F. (1999).Qualitative Evaluation. London, Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sicotte, C., Denis, J.L., Lehoux, P. and Champagne, F. (1998). The computer-based patient record challenges towards timeless and spaceless medical practice.Journal of Medical Systems, 22(4), 237–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Southon, G., Sauer, C. and Dampney, K. (1999). Lessons from a failed informations initiative: Issues for complex organisations.International Journal of Medical Informatics, 55, 33–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politicsDeadalus, 109, 121–136. Reprinted in

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, D. and Wajcman, J. (eds.) (1985).The Social Shaping of Technology. Open University Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meijden, M.J., Tange, H.J., Boiten, J., Troost, J. and Hasman, A. (2000a). An experimental electronic patient record for stroke patients. Part 1: Situation analysis.International Journal of Medical Informatics, 58–59, 111–125, Sep.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Meijden, M.J., Tange, H.J., Boiten, J., Troost, J. and Hasman, A. (2000b). An experimental electronic patient record for stroke patients. Part 2: System description.International Journal of Medical Informatics, 58–59, 127–140, Sep.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wanless, D. (2002). Securing Our Future Health: Taking a Long-Term View. London, DOH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. (2005). Letter to editor.British Medical Journal, 331, 516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This chapter has benefited from various parties including Geraldine Fitzpatrick, Tim Rapley and Rob Wilson. I would also like to acknowledge the editors, especially Mark Hartswood.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health and Society at Newcastle University, Newcastle

    K. Neil Jenkings

Authors
  1. K. Neil Jenkings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Neil Jenkings .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Jenkings, K.N. (2009). User-Designer Relations in Technology Production: The Development and Evaluation of an ‘Animator’ Tool to Facilitate User Involvement in the Development of Electronic Health Records. In: Büscher, M., Slack, R., Rouncefield, M., Procter, R., Hartswood, M., Voss, A. (eds) Configuring User-Designer Relations. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-925-5_4

    Download citation

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-925-5_4

    • Published:

    • Publisher Name: Springer, London

    • Print ISBN: 978-1-84628-924-8

    • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-925-5

    • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Search

    Navigation