The Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of a Web-Based Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration Platform in the Hospital Setting: Interview Study With Health Care Providers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with complex care needs require an interprofessional team of health professionals working together to support their care in hospitals and during discharge planning. However, interprofessional communication and collaboration in inpatient settings are often fragmented and inefficient, leading to poor patient outcomes and provider frustration. Health information technology can potentially help improve team communication and collaboration; however, to date, evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. There are also concerns that current implementations might further fragment communication and increase the clinician burden without proven benefits. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to generate transferrable lessons for future designers of health information technology tools that facilitate team communication and collaboration. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the qualitative component of the mixed methods evaluation was performed. The electronic communication and collaboration platform was implemented in 2 general internal medicine wards in a large community teaching hospital in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Fifteen inpatient clinicians in those wards, including nurses, physicians, and allied health care providers, were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews about their experience with a co-designed electronic communication and collaboration tool. Data were analyzed using the Technology Acceptance Model, and themes related to the constructs of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) were identified. RESULTS: A secondary analysis guided by the Technology Acceptance Model highlighted important points. Intuitive design precluded training as a barrier to use, but lack of training may hinder participants' PEOU if features designed for efficiency are not discovered by users. Organized information was found to be useful for creating a comprehensive clinical picture of each patient and facilitating improved handovers. However, information needs to be both comprehensive and succinct, and information overload may negatively impact PEOU. The mixed paper and electronic practice environment also negatively impacted PEOU owing to unavoidable double documentation and the need for printing. Participants perceived the tool to be useful as it improved efficiency in information retrieval and documentation, improved the handover process, afforded another mode of communication when face-to-face communication was impractical, and improved shared awareness. The PU of this tool depends on its optimal use by all team members. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic tools can support communication and collaboration among interprofessional teams caring for patients with complex needs. There are transferable lessons learned that can improve the PU and PEOU of future systems.
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 | 0,013 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
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 ».