Practical Recommendations for Navigating Digital Tools in Hospitals: Qualitative Interview Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The digitalization of health care organizations is an integral part of a clinician's daily life, making it vital for health care professionals (HCPs) to understand and effectively use digital tools in hospital settings. However, clinicians often express a lack of preparedness for their digital work environments. Particularly, new clinical end users, encompassing medical and nursing students, seasoned professionals transitioning to new health care environments, and experienced practitioners encountering new health care technologies, face critically intense learning periods, often with a lack of adequate time for learning digital tools, resulting in difficulties in integrating and adopting these digital tools into clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively collect advice from experienced HCPs in Switzerland to guide new clinical end users on how to initiate their engagement with health ITs within hospital settings. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with 52 HCPs across Switzerland, representing 24 medical specialties from 14 hospitals. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis. Codes were developed iteratively, and themes and aggregated dimensions were refined through collaborative discussions. RESULTS: Ten themes emerged from the interview data, namely (1) digital tool understanding, (2) peer-based learning strategies, (3) experimental learning approaches, (4) knowledge exchange and support, (5) training approaches, (6) proactive innovation, (7) an adaptive technology mindset, (8) critical thinking approaches, (9) dealing with emotions, and (10) empathy and human factors. Consequently, we devised 10 recommendations with specific advice to new clinical end users on how to approach new health care technologies, encompassing the following: take time to get to know and understand the tools you are working with; proactively ask experienced colleagues; simply try it out and practice; know where to get help and information; take sufficient training; embrace curiosity and pursue innovation; maintain an open and adaptable mindset; keep thinking critically and use your knowledge base; overcome your fears, and never lose the human and patient focus. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasized the importance of comprehensive training and learning approaches for health care technologies based on the advice and recommendations of experienced HCPs based in Swiss hospitals. Moreover, these recommendations have implications for medical educators and clinical instructors, providing advice on effective methods to instruct and support new end users, enabling them to use novel technologies proficiently. Therefore, we advocate for new clinical end users, health care institutions and clinical instructors, academic institutions and medical educators, and regulatory bodies to prioritize effective training and cultivating technological readiness to optimize IT use in health care.
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 | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 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 ».