Advertisement

Digital Transformation of Prostate Cancer Pathway and Optimizing Patient Experience, Patient Safety and Clinical Professionalism

  • Joan CahillEmail author
  • Ben Turney
  • Sean Wetherall
  • Haseeb Khan
  • Maurice McGrath
  • Igor Widlicki
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11582)

Abstract

This paper presents the preliminary findings of an ongoing human factors re-search project addressing the digital transformation of the prostate cancer path-way to optimize patient experience, patient safety and clinical professionalism. The proposed technology attempts establish an appropriate balance between focusing on (1) cure/cancer treatment outcomes and (2) quality of life. Preliminary research indicates that this technology provides an opportunity to influence the behavior and actions of clinicians, enhancing professionalism and impacting on patient experience and patient safety.

Keywords

Patient experience Oncology pathways Electronic health records Staff professionalism 

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel, R., Ma, J., Zou, Z., Jemal, A.: CA cancer. J. Clin. 64(1), 9–29 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thompson, I., et al.: Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J. Urol. 177(6), 2106–2131 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Institute of Medicine: Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, vol. 6. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Starfield, B.: Is patient-centered care the same as person-focused care? Perm. J. 15(2), 63–69 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kitwood, T.: Dementia Reconsidered: The Person Comes First. Open University Press, Buckingham (1997)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nolan, M.: Relationship-centred care: towards a new model of rehabilitation. Br. Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. 9, 472–477 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Soklaridis, S., Ravitz, P., Adler, G., Nevo, A., Lieff, S.: Relationship-centered care in health: a 20-year scoping review. Patient Exp. J. 3(1), 130–145 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beach, M.C., Inui, T., Relationship-cantered care research network: relationship-centered care: a constructive reframing. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 21(Suppl 1), S3–S8 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wolf, J., Niederhauser, V., Marshburn, D., LaVela, S.: Defining patient experience. Patient Exp. J. 1(1), Article no, 3 (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hewitson, P., Skew, A., Graham, C., Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A.: People with limiting long-term conditions report poorer experiences and more problems with hospital care. BMC Health Serv. Res. 14, 33 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    NHS Long term plan. https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/online-version/. Accessed 24 Jan 2019
  12. 12.
    National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2017: National Results Summary (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor, C., Shewbridge, A., Harris, J., Green, J.: Benefits of multidisciplinary teamwork in the management of breast cancer. Breast Cancer: Targets Ther. 5, 79–85 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Public Health England: Surveillance of surgical site infections in NHS hospitals in England: April 2016 to March 2017, December 2017. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/666465/SSI_annual_report_NHS_hospitals_2016-17.pdf. Accessed 24 Jan 2019
  15. 15.
    Madden, D.: Building a culture of patient safety: report of the commission on patient safety and quality assurance. Department of Health, Ireland (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dixon-Woods, M., Pronovost, P.J.: Patient safety and the problem of many hands. BMJ Qual. Saf. 25, 485–488 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    JCP Editors: Research in review - integrating electronic health records into clinical pathways for radiation oncology reduces waiting times. J. Clin. Pathways 2(2), 12–15 (2016)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cousins, J.B., Whitmore, E., Shulha, L.: Arguments for a common set of principles for collaborative inquiry in evaluation. Am. J. Eval. 34(1), 7–22 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Maanen, J.: Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1988)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hammersley, M., Atkinson, P.: Ethnography: Principles in Practice, 3rd edn. Routledge, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pruitt, J., Grudin, J.: Personas: practice and theory. In: Proceedings of the 2003 Conference on Designing for User Experiences (DUX 2003), pp. 1–15. ACM, New York (2003). http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/997078.997089
  22. 22.
    Bødker, S., Burr, J.: The design collaboratorium. A place for usability design. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 9(2), 152–169 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyTrinity College Dublin (TCD)Dublin 2Ireland
  2. 2.Churchill HospitalOxford University Hospital (OUH)OxfordEngland
  3. 3.Oneview HealthcareDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations