Applying design science to address health system problems: a case of designing communication to manage clinician anonymity in an academic hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on two novel elements: studying the phenomenon of ‘clinician anonymity’ and its effects on inter-professional communication in hospital practice and applying design science theory and methodology to understand and address communication problems. Healthcare is characterized by “more to do, more to know, more to manage, and more people involved than ever before.” This reality brings challenges to staff working in rapidly changing teams and stressful environments. The inability to recognize colleagues and the general lack of familiarity within teams undermines the effective collaboration that is critical to the delivery of patient care. This phenomenon, termed ‘clinician anonymity,’ was neither well defined nor understood, and few studies focused on interventions that addressed its causes and effects. In order to evaluate how an intervention, both the design of an artifact and the process of its design, influence the phenomenon of clinician anonymity, a longitudinal, mixed methods (observations, interviews, surveys) study was conducted at a large urban teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada. Based on existing frameworks and drawing from initial observations, a theoretical model of clinician anonymity was developed. The model informed the initial requirements for ‘Face2Name,’ a tool designed to act on the communication practices linked to anonymity. Pre- and post-intervention data comprising of 158 hours of observations over 8 months, 14 semi-structured interviews, and over 250 surveys were collected at four points in time. Results showed strong evidence of clinician anonymity in hospitals and revealed that the predominant cause is the nature of teaching hospitals, characterized by rapidly changing fluid teams, organizational structures and power dynamics between professions that dictate how collaborative processes and standard procedures are performed. Evaluation of the intervention confirmed the benefits of a visual tool on recall and staff satisfaction and user feedback contributed to making each subsequent iteration better suited to staff workflow and the hospital environment. Results also revealed that the process of designing and deploying the tool was more effective in addressing the problem of anonymity than the artifact itself, confirming a main tenet of design science that the intervention is both process and resulting product. Findings from this study are of value within and also outside the hospital, generalizable to other environments with fluid teams or with similar institutional cultures. Moreover, the reflective process intrinsic to design science provided considerable insights on how to conduct future design studies in the context of communication research.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".