'You can't just hit a button': An ethnographic study of strategies to repurpose data from advanced clinical information systems for clinical process improvement

BMC Medicine

Volumn 11, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Morrison, Cecily ^a   Jones, Matthew ^b   Jones, Rachel ^c   Vuylsteke, Alain ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^c Instrata Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^d PAPWORTH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Clinical information system; Clinical process improvement; Computerized medical records systems; Intensive care; Qualitative research; Secondary use of data; User customization

Indexed keywords

AMBIGUITY; ARTICLE; ETHNOGRAPHY; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; INTENSIVE CARE UNIT; INTERVIEW; LEADERSHIP; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; READING; UNITED KINGDOM;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; ENGLAND; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INTENSIVE CARE UNITS; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE;

EID: 84875944461     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17417015     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-11-103     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. UK Department of Health Liberating the NHS. An Information Revolution. [http://www.ico.gov.uk/about_us/consultations/~/media/documents/consultation_responses/Liberating_the_NHS_An_Information_Revolution_Consultation.ashx], UK Department of Health.
2. PricewaterhouseCoopers Transforming healthcare through secondary use of health data. [http://www.pwc.com/us/en/healthcare/publications/secondary-health-data.jhtml], PricewaterhouseCoopers.
3. Humber M. National programme for information technology. BMJ 2004, 328:1145-6. 10.1136/bmj.328.7449.1145, 411076, 15142891.
4. Blumenthal D. Stimulating the adoption of health information technology. N Engl J Med 2009, 360:1477-1479. 10.1056/NEJMp0901592, 19321856.
5. Greenhalgh T, Potts HWW, Wong G, Bark P, Swinglehurst D. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q 2009, 87:729-88. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00578.x, 2888022, 20021585.
6. Berg M, Goorman E. The contextual nature of medical information. Int J Med Inform 1999, 56:51-60. 10.1016/S1386-5056(99)00041-6, 10659934.
7. Winthereik BR. " We fill in our working understanding" : on codes, classifications and the production of accurate data. Methods Inf Med 2003, 42:489-96.
8. Sheikh A, Cornford T, Barber N, Avery A, Takian A, Lichtner V, Petrakaki D, Crowe S, Marsden K, Robertson A, Morrison Z, Klecun E, Prescott R, Quinn C, Jani Y, Ficociello M, Voutsina K, Paton J, Fernando B, Jacklin A, Cresswell K. Implementation and adoption of nationwide electronic health records in secondary care in England: final qualitative results from prospective national evaluation in " early adopter" hospitals. BMJ 2011, 343:d6054-d6054. 10.1136/bmj.d6054, 3195310, 22006942.
9. Scott JT, Rundall TG, Vogt TM, Hsu J. Kaiser Permanente's experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study. BMJ 2005, 331:1313-6. 10.1136/bmj.38638.497477.68, 1298854, 16269467.
10. Sanderson H, Adams T, Budden M, Hoare C. Lessons from the central Hampshire electronic health record pilot project: evaluation of the electronic health record for supporting patient care and secondary analysis. BMJ 2004, 328:875-8. 10.1136/bmj.328.7444.875, 387482, 15073071.
11. Morrison C, Blackwell A, Vuylsteke A. Practitioner-customizable clinical information systems: a case study to ground further research and development opportunities. J Healthcare Eng 2010, 1:297-313.
12. Beyer H, Holtzblatt K. Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems 1998, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
13. Randall D, Harper R, Rouncefield M. Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice (Computer Supported Cooperative Work) 2007, New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
14. Pratt W, Reddy MC, McDonald DW, Tarczy-Hornoch P, Gennari JH. Incorporating ideas from computer-supported cooperative work. J Biomed Inform 2004, 37:128-137. 10.1016/j.jbi.2004.04.001, 15120659.
15. Greenhalgh T, Russell J. Why do evaluations of eHealth programs fail? An alternative set of guiding principles. PLoS Med 2010, 7:e1000360. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000360, 2970573, 21072245.
16. Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D. Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography. BMC Med 2011, 9:45. 10.1186/1741-7015-9-45, 3108909, 21521535.
17. QSR International NVivo research software. [http://www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx], QSR International.
18. George Alexander L, Bennett A. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences 2005, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
19. Winthereik BR, Vikkels S. ICT and Integrated Care: Some Dilemmas of Standardising Inter-Organisational Communication. Comp Support Coop Work 2005, 14:43-67.
20. Senathirajah Y, Bakken S. MedWISE: a highly user-configurable'web 2.0'EHR. Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Health Informatics Symposium 2010, 845-848. New York, NY, USA: ACM.
21. Winthereik BR, van der Ploeg I, Berg M. The electronic patient record as a meaningful audit tool: accountability and autonomy in general practitioner work. Sci Tech Human Val 2007, 32:6-25.
22. Dalton ARH, Bottle A, Soljak M, Okoro C, Majeed A, Millett C. The comparison of cardiovascular risk scores using two methods of substituting missing risk factor data in patient medical records. Inform Prim Care 2011, 19:225-32.