Practical Recommendations for Navigating Digital Tools in Hospitals: Qualitative Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".