Findings and Guidelines on Provider Technology, Fatigue, and Well-being: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Video and other technologies are reshaping the delivery of health care, yet barriers related to workflow and possible provider fatigue suggest that a thorough evaluation is needed for quality and process improvement. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review explored the relationship among technology, fatigue, and health care to improve the conditions for providers. METHODS: A 6-stage scoping review of literature (from 10 databases) published from 2000 to 2020 that focused on technology, health care, and fatigue was conducted. Technologies included synchronous video, telephone, informatics systems, asynchronous wearable sensors, and mobile health devices for health care in 4 concept areas related to provider experience: behavioral, cognitive, emotional, and physical impact; workplace at the individual, clinic, hospital, and system or organizational levels; well-being, burnout, and stress; and perceptions regarding technology. Qualitative content, discourse, and framework analyses were used to thematically analyze data for developing a spectrum of health to risk of fatigue to manifestations of burnout. RESULTS: Of the 4221 potential literature references, 202 (4.79%) were duplicates, and our review of the titles and abstracts of 4019 (95.21%) found that 3837 (90.9%) were irrelevant. A full-text review of 182 studies revealed that 12 (6.6%) studies met all the criteria related to technology, health care, and fatigue, and these studied the behavioral, emotional, cognitive, and physical impact of workflow at the individual, hospital, and system or organizational levels. Video and electronic health record use has been associated with physical eye fatigue; neck pain; stress; tiredness; and behavioral impacts related to additional effort owing to barriers, trouble with engagement, emotional wear and tear and exhaustion, cognitive inattention, effort, expecting problems, multitasking and workload, and emotional experiences (eg, anger, irritability, stress, and concern about well-being). An additional 14 studies that evaluated behavioral, emotional, and cognitive impacts without focusing on fatigue found high user ratings on data quality, accuracy, and processing but low satisfaction with clerical tasks, the effort required in work, and interruptions costing time, resulting in more errors, stress, and frustration. Our qualitative analysis suggests a spectrum from health to risk and provides an outline of organizational approaches to human factors and technology in health care. Business, occupational health, human factors, and well-being literature have not studied technology fatigue and burnout; however, their findings help contextualize technology-based fatigue to suggest guidelines. Few studies were found to contextually evaluate differences according to health professions and practice contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Health care systems need to evaluate the impact of technology in accordance with the Quadruple Aim to support providers' well-being and prevent workload burden, fatigue, and burnout. Implementation and effectiveness approaches and a multilevel approach with objective measures for clinical, human factors, training, professional development, and administrative workflow are suggested. This requires institutional strategies and competencies to integrate health care quality, technology and well-being outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,075 | 0,213 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,009 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,057 | 0,042 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,011 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,013 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».