Clinical Informatics Team Members’ Perspectives on Health Information Technology Safety After Experiential Learning and Safety Process Development: Qualitative Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although intended to support improvement, the rapid adoption and evolution of technologies in health care can also bring about unintended consequences related to safety. In this project, an embedded researcher with expertise in patient safety and clinical education worked with a clinical informatics team to examine safety and harm related to health information technologies (HITs) in primary and community care settings. The clinical informatics team participated in learning activities around relevant topics (eg, human factors, high reliability organizations, and sociotechnical systems) and cocreated a process to address safety events related to technology (ie, safety huddles and sociotechnical analysis of safety events). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore clinical informaticians' experiences of incorporating safety practices into their work. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design and conducted web-based focus groups with clinical informaticians. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: A total of 10 informants participated. Barriers to addressing safety and harm in their context included limited prior knowledge of HIT safety, previous assumptions and perspectives, competing priorities and organizational barriers, difficulty with the reporting system and processes, and a limited number of reports for learning. Enablers to promoting safety and mitigating harm included participating in learning sessions, gaining experience analyzing reported events, participating in safety huddles, and role modeling and leadership from the embedded researcher. Individual outcomes included increased ownership and interest in HIT safety, the development of a sociotechnical systems perspective, thinking differently about safety, and increased consideration for user perspectives. Team outcomes included enhanced communication within the team, using safety events to inform future work and strategic planning, and an overall promotion of a culture of safety. CONCLUSIONS: As HITs are integrated into care delivery, it is important for clinical informaticians to recognize the risks related to safety. Experiential learning activities, including reviewing safety event reports and participating in safety huddles, were identified as particularly impactful. An HIT safety learning initiative is a feasible approach for clinical informaticians to become more knowledgeable and engaged in HIT safety issues in their work.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".