Search

BackgroundHospitals worldwide are developing ambitious digital transformation programs as part of broader efforts to create digitally advanced health care systems. However, there is as yet no consensus on how best to characterize and assess digital excellence in hospitals. ObjectiveOur aim was to develop an international agreement on a defined set of technological capabilities to assess digital excellence in hospitals. MethodsWe conducted a two-stage international modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) consensus-building exercise, which included a qualitative analysis of free-text responses. In total, 31 international health informatics experts participated, representing clinical, academic, public, and vendor organizations. ResultsWe identified 35 technological capabilities that indicate digital excellence in hospitals. These are divided into two categories: (a) capabilities within a hospital (n=20) and (b) capabilities enabling communication with other parts of the health and social care system, and with patients and carers (n=15). The analysis of free-text responses pointed to the importance of nontechnological aspects of digitally enabled change, including social and organizational factors. Examples included an institutional culture characterized by a willingness to transform established ways of working and openness to risk-taking. The availability of a range of skills within digitization teams, including technological, project management and business expertise, and availability of resources to support hospital staff, were also highlighted. ConclusionsWe have identified a set of criteria for assessing digital excellence in hospitals. Our findings highlight the need to broaden the focus from technical functionalities to wider digital transformation capabilities.

Background: The Global Digital Exemplar (GDE) Programme is a national initiative to promote digitally enabled transformation in English provider organizations. The Programme applied benefits realization management techniques to promote and demonstrate transformative outcomes. This work was part of an independent national evaluation of the GDE Programme.Aims: We explored how benefits realization management was approached and conceptualized in the GDE Programme.Methods: We conducted a series of 36 longitudinal case studies of provider organizations participating in the GDE Programme, 12 of which were in depth. Data collection included a combination of 628 interviews (with implementation staff in provider organizations, national programme management staff, and suppliers), 499 documents (of national and local implementation plans and lessons learned), and 190 nonparticipant observations (of national and local programme management meetings to develop insights into the broader context of benefits realization activities, tensions arising, and how these were negotiated). Data were coded drawing on a sociotechnical framework developed in related work and thematically analyzed, initially within and then across cases, with the help of NVivo 11 software.Results: Most stakeholders broadly agreed with the rationale of benefits realization in the GDE Programme to show due diligence that public money was appropriately spent, and to develop an evidence base supporting the value of digitally enabled transformation. Differing national and local reporting purposes, however, created tensions. Central requirements, for progress reporting and tracking high-level benefits, had limited perceived local value and were seen to impose an unnecessary burden on provider organizations. This was accentuated by the lack of harmonization of reporting requirements to different stakeholders (which differed in content and timing). There were tensions between the desire for early evidence of outcomes and the slow processes of infrastructural change (which created problems of attribution of benefits to causes as benefits emerged gradually and over long timeframes), and also between reporting immediately visible local changes and showing how these flowed through to high level organization wide benefits (eg, in terms of health outcomes or cost savings/return on investment). The attempt to fulfill these diverging agendas and informational needs within a single reporting tool had limited success. These difficulties were mitigated by efforts to simplify reporting requirements and to support targeted collection of key national outcome measures. Although progress was hampered by an initial lack of benefits realization expertise in provider organizations, some providers subsequently retained these skills for their own change management purposes.Conclusions: There is a need to recognize the limitations and cost of benefits realization management practices in the context of healthcare digitalization where benefits may materialize over long timeframes and in unanticipated ways. Although diverse stakeholder information needs may create tensions, prior agreement about rationales for collecting information and a targeted approach to tracking local and high-level benefits may enhance local relevance, reduce perceived reporting burdens, and improve acceptance/effectiveness. A single integrated reporting mechanism is unlikely to fulfill both national and local requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Self-management is rarely studied 'in the wild'. We sought to produce a richer understanding of how people live with diabetes and why self-management is challenging for some. Method Ethnographic study supplemented with background documents on social context. We studied a socio-economically and ethnically diverse UK population. We sampled 30 people with diabetes (15 type 1, 15 type 2) by snowballing from patient groups, community contacts and NHS clinics. Participants (aged 5-88, from a range of ethnic and socio-economic groups) were shadowed at home and in the community for 2-4 periods of several hours (total 88 visits, 230 hours); interviewed (sometimes with a family member or carer) about their self-management efforts and support needs; and taken out for a meal. Detailed field notes were made and annotated. Data analysis was informed by structuration theory, which assumes that individuals' actions and choices depend on their dispositions and capabilities, which in turn are shaped and constrained (though not entirely determined) by wider social structures. Results Self-management comprised both practical and cognitive tasks (e.g. self-monitoring, menu planning, medication adjustment) and socio-emotional ones (e.g. coping with illness, managing relatives' input, negotiating access to services or resources). Self-management was hard work, and was enabled or constrained by economic, material and socio-cultural conditions within the family, workplace and community. Some people managed their diabetes skilfully and flexibly, drawing on personal capabilities, family and social networks and the healthcare system. For others, capacity to self-manage (including overcoming economic and socio-cultural constraints) was limited by co-morbidity, cognitive ability, psychological factors (e.g. under-confidence, denial) and social capital. The consequences of self-management efforts strongly influenced people's capacity and motivation to continue them. Conclusion Self-management of diabetes is physically, intellectually, emotionally and socially demanding. Non-engagement with self-management may make sense in the context of low personal resources (e.g. health literacy, resilience) and overwhelming personal, family and social circumstances. Success of self-management as a policy solution will be affected by interacting influences at three levels: [a] at micro level by individuals' dispositions and capabilities; [b] at meso level by roles, relationships and material conditions within the family and in the workplace, school and healthcare organisation; and [c] at macro level by prevailing economic conditions, cultural norms and expectations, and the underpinning logic of the healthcare system. We propose that the research agenda on living with diabetes be extended and the political economy of self-management systematically studied.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a growing concern for public health., Objective: We sought to explore the challenges associated with development and implementation of a complex intervention designed to improve AMS in hospitals., Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of a complex AMS intervention with educational, behavioral, and technological components in 5 wards of an English hospital. At 2 weeks and 7 weeks after initiating the intervention, we interviewed 25 users of the intervention, including senior and junior prescribers, a senior nurse, a pharmacist, and a microbiologist. Topics discussed included perceived impacts of different elements of the intervention and facilitators and barriers to effective use. Interviews were supplemented by 2 observations of ward rounds to gain insights into AMS practices. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, and inductively and deductively analyzed thematically using NVivo12., Results: Tracing the adoption and impact of the various components of the intervention was difficult, as it had been introduced into a setting with competing pressures. These particularly affected behavioral and educational components (eg, training, awareness-building activities), which were often delivered ad hoc. We found that the participatory intervention design had addressed typical use cases but had not catered for edge cases that only became visible when the intervention was delivered in real-world settings (eg, variations in prescribing workflows across different specialties and conditions)., Conclusions: Effective user-focused design of complex interventions to promote AMS can support acceptance and use. However, not all requirements and potential barriers to use can be fully anticipated or tested in advance of full implementation in real-world settings., (©Kathrin Cresswell, Susan Hinder, Aziz Sheikh, Neil Watson, David Price, Andrew Heed, Sarah Katie Pontefract, Jamie Coleman, Jillian Beggs, Antony Chuter, Ann Slee, Robin Williams. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 26.07.2024.)

Objective: To evaluate the policy making process, implementation by NHS organisations, and patients' and carers' experiences of efforts to introduce an internet accessible personal electronic health record (HealthSpace) in a public sector healthcare system., Design: Mixed method, multilevel case study., Setting: English National Health Service; the basic HealthSpace technology (available throughout England) and the advanced version (available in a few localities where this option had been introduced) were considered., Main Outcome Measures: National statistics on invitations sent, HealthSpace accounts created, and interviews and ethnographic observation of patients and carers. Data analysis was informed by a socio-technical approach which considered macro and micro influences on both adoption and non-adoption of innovations, and by the principles of critical discourse analysis., Participants: 56 patients and carers (of whom 21 opened a basic HealthSpace account, 20 had diabetes but were not initially using HealthSpace, and 15 used advanced HealthSpace accounts to exchange messages with their general practitioner), 3000 pages of documents (policies, strategies, business plans, minutes of meetings, correspondence), observational field notes, and 160 interviews with policy makers, project managers, and clinical staff., Results: Between 2007 and October 2010, 172 950 people opened a basic HealthSpace account. 2913 (0.13% of those invited) opened an advanced account, compared with 5-10% of the population anticipated in the original business case. Overall, patients perceived HealthSpace as neither useful nor easy to use and its functionality aligned poorly with their expectations and self management practices. Those who used email-style messaging were positive about its benefits, but enthusiasm beyond three early adopter clinicians was low, and fewer than 100 of 30 000 patients expressed interest. Policy makers' hopes that "deploying" HealthSpace would lead to empowered patients, personalised care, lower NHS costs, better data quality, and improved health literacy were not realised over the three year evaluation period., Conclusion: Unless personal electronic health records align closely with people's attitudes, self management practices, identified information needs, and the wider care package (including organisational routines and incentive structures for clinicians), the risk that they will be abandoned or not adopted at all is substantial. Conceptualising such records dynamically (as components of a socio-technical network) rather than statically (as containers for data) and employing user centred design techniques might improve their chances of adoption and use. The findings raise questions about how eHealth programmes in England are developed and approved at policy level.