How Older Persons and Health Care Professionals Co-designed a Medication Plan Prototype Remotely to Promote Patient Safety: Case Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Harm from medications is a major patient safety challenge. Most adverse drug events arise when a medication is prescribed or reevaluated. Therefore, interventions in this area may improve patient safety. A medication plan, that is, a plan for continued treatment with medications, may support patient safety. Participation of patients in the design of health care products or services may improve patient safety. Co-design, as in the Double Diamond framework from the Design Council, England, can emphasize patient involvement. As the COVID-19 pandemic brought restrictions to face-to-face co-design approaches, interest in remote approaches increased. However, it is uncertain how best to perform remote co-design. Therefore, we explored a remote approach, which brought together older persons and health care professionals to co-design a medication plan prototype in the electronic health record, aiming to support patient safety. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe how remote co-design was applied to create a medication plan prototype and to explore participants' experiences with this approach. METHODS: Within a case study design, we explored the experiences of a remote co-design initiative with 14 participants in a regional health care system in southern Sweden. Using descriptive statistics, quantitative data from questionnaires and web-based workshop timestamps were analyzed. A thematic analysis of the qualitative data gathered from workshops, interviews, and free-text responses to the survey questions was performed. Qualitative and quantitative data were compared side by side in the discussion. RESULTS: The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that the participants rated the experiences of the co-design initiative very high. In addition, the balance between how much involved persons expressed their wishes and were listened to was considered very good. Marked timestamps from audio recordings showed that the workshops proceeded according to the plan. The thematic analysis yielded the following main themes: Everyone's perspective matters, Learning by sharing, and Mastering a digital space. The themes encompassed what helped to establish a permissive environment that allowed the participants to be involved and share viewpoints. There was a dynamic process of learning and understanding, realizing that despite different backgrounds, there was consensus about the requirements for a medication plan. The remote co-design process seemed appealing, by balancing opportunities and challenges and building an inviting, creative, and tolerant environment. CONCLUSIONS: Participants experienced that the remote co-design initiative was inclusive of their perspectives and facilitated learning by sharing experiences. The Double Diamond framework was applicable in a digital context and supported the co-design process of the medication plan prototype. Remote co-design is still novel, but with attentiveness to power relations between all involved, this approach may increase opportunities for older persons and health care professionals to collaboratively design products or services that can improve patient safety.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».