Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Debate

Healthcare information systems: the cognitive challenge

Authors: Gavan Lintern, Al Motavalli

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Healthcare work is, to a considerable extent, cognitive. Subsequently, the analysis and the design of supporting technology must be sensitive to the cognitive and adaptive demands of the work and to the cognitive strategies employed by healthcare practitioners. Despite the vital role that cognition plays in healthcare work, current technocentric design approaches for healthcare technology do not account for it, failing to observe it during analysis and failing to develop support for it during design.

Main body

By review and analysis of case studies, we show that healthcare systems developed without input from cognitive analysis and cognitive design fail to take account of important healthcare work processes and workflows. In contrast, systems developed with a cognitively-focused design strategy demonstrate how it is possible to introduce technology that supports and enhances the work strategies of those engaged in patient care.

Conclusion

Significant problems emerge when technological support systems are developed without any serious and comprehensive attempt to understand the cognitive capabilities and skills deployed by those involved in patient care. In contrast, significant benefits accrue from taking full account of those cognitive capabilities and skills. Subsequently, the design and development of supporting technology must be sensitive to the cognitive demands of the work and the cognitive strategies employed by healthcare practitioners.
Literature
1.
2.
Vanderhook S, Abraham J. Unintended Consequences of EHR Systems: A Narrative Review. Proceedings of the 2017 International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care. 2017.
3.
4.
Greenhalgh T, Potts H, Wong G, Bark P, Swinglehurst D. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q. 2009;87:729–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
Greenhalgh T, Stones R. Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong structuration theory meets actor-network theory. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:1285–94.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Shaha JS, El-Othmani MM, Saleh JK, Bozic KJ, Wright J, Tokish JM, Shaha SH, Saleh KJ. The growing gap in electronic medical record satisfaction between clinicians and information technology professionals: issues of most concern and suggested remediations. J Bone Joint Surg. 2015;97(23):1979–84. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2106/​jbjs.​n.​01118.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Challenger R, Clegg CW, Shepherd C. Function allocation in complex systems: reframing an old problem. Ergonomics. 2013;56:1051–69.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Nemeth C, Nunnally M, Bitan Y, et al. Between choice and chance: the role of human factors in acute care equipment decisions. J Patient Saf. 2009;5:114–21.CrossRefPubMed
14.
15.
Lintern G. Flight instruction: the challenge from situated cognition. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1995;5:327–50.CrossRef
16.
Klein GA. Recognition-primed decisions. In: Rouse WB, editor. Advances in man-machine systems research, vol. 5. Greenwich: JAI; 1989. p. 47–92.
17.
18.
Aboumatar HJ, Weaver SJ, Rees D, et al. Towards high-reliability organising in healthcare: a strategy for building organisational capacity. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:663–670.
19.
Sutcliffe KM, Paine L, Pronovost PJ. Re-examining high reliability: actively organising for safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:248–51.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM. Managing the unexpected: assuring high performance in an age of complexity. San Francisco: John Wiley; 2001.
21.
22.
Barnes J, Schumacher R. Improving Usability through the User-Centered Design Process, Chapter 10. In Ong KK, editor. Medical Informatics: An Executive Primer, Third Edition. Boca Rotan: HIMSS Publishing; 2015. P. 161–176. eBook ISBN: 9781498757409.
23.
24.
LeRouge C, Wickramasinghe N. A review of user-centered design for diabetes-related consumer health informatics technologies. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013;7(4):1039.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Militello LG, Klein G. Decision-Centered Design. In Lee JD, Kirlik A, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Engineering. Oxford University Press 2013. Oxford Handbooks Online: www.​oxfordhandbooks.​com.
26.
27.
Crandall B, Klein G, Hoffman RR. Working minds: a practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2006.
28.
Lintern G, Moon B, Klein G, Hoffman RR. Eliciting and representing the knowledge of experts. In: Anders Ericsson K, Hoffman RR, Kozbelt A, Williams M, editors. The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2018. Ch 11.
29.
Lintern G. A comparison of the decision ladder and the recognition-primed decision model. J Cogn Eng Decis Making. 2010;4(4):304–27.CrossRef
30.
Rasmussen J. Information processing and human machine interaction: an approach to cognitive engineering. New York: Science publishing, North Holland series in system science and engineering; 1986. p. 12. ISBN 0–444–00987-6
31.
Rasmussen J, Pejtersen AM, Goodstein LP. Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley; 1994.
32.
Watson MO, Sanderson PM. Designing for attention with sound: challenges and extensions to ecological Interface design. Hum Factors. 2007;49:331–46.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Militello LG, Dominguez CO, Lintern G, Klein G. The role of cognitive systems engineering in the systems engineering design process. Syst Eng. 2010;13:261–73.
34.
Cook RI, Woods DD, Walters M, et al. The cognitive systems engineering of automated medical evacuation scheduling. In: Proceedings of human interaction with complex systems. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society Press; 1996. p. 202–7.
35.
Walters ME. The Cognitive Complexity of Event-Driven Replanning: Managing Cascading Secondary Disruptions in Aeromedical Evacuation Planning. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbus: OH, The Ohio State University 1997.
36.
Cook RI. Being Bumpable. In: Woods DD, Hollnagel E, editors. Joint cognitive systems: patterns in cognitive systems engineering, chapter 3. Boca Rotan: CRC Press; 2006. ISBN: 0849339332.
37.
Cook RI, Woods DD. Adapting to new Technology in the Operating Room. Hum Factors. 1996;38(4):593–613.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Chabris C, Simons D. The Invisible Gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us. New York: Random House; 2010.
39.
Tufte ER. Visual explanations: images and quantities, evidence and narrative, vol. 1997. Cheshire: Graphics Press; 1997.
40.
Gibson JJ. The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1979.
41.
Lintern G. An affordance-based perspective on human-machine interface design. Ecol Psychol. 2000;12:65–9.CrossRef
42.
43.
44.
American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2017–2019. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2017.
45.
Militello LG, Saleem JJ, Borders MR, et al. Designing colorectal cancer screening decision support: a cognitive engineering Enterprise. J Cogn Eng Decis Making. 2016;10:74–90.CrossRef
46.
Militello LG, Borders MR, Arbuckle NB, et al. Persuasive health educational materials for colorectal cancer screening. In: Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society 58th annual meeting. Santa Monica: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society; 2014. p. 609–13.
47.
Zijlstra F, van Doorn L. The construction of a scale to measure subjective effort. Technical Report. Delft University of Technology 1985.
48.
Klein HA, Lippa KD. Type 2 diabetes self-management: controlling a dynamic system. Cogn Eng Decis Making. 2008;2(1):48–62.CrossRef
49.
Klein HA, Lippa KD. Assuming control after system failure: type II diabetes self-management. Cogn Technol Work. 2012;14:243–51.CrossRef
50.
Klinger DW, Klein G. Emergency response organizations: an accident waiting to happen. Ergon Des. 1999;7:20–5.
51.
Staszewski J. Models of expertise as blueprints for cognitive engineering: applications to landmine detection. Proceedings of the 48th annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics Society. 2004:458–62.
Metadata
Title
Healthcare information systems: the cognitive challenge
Authors
Gavan Lintern
Al Motavalli
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0584-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Design and implementation of an m-health data model for improving health information access for reproductive and child health services in low resource settings using a participatory action research approach

Research article

Using data-driven sublanguage pattern mining to induce knowledge models: application in medical image reports knowledge representation

Research article

Evidence-based usability design principles for medication alerting systems

Research article

What do emergency medicine and burns specialists from resource constrained settings expect from mHealth-based diagnostic support? A qualitative study examining the case of acute burn care

Correction

Correction to: A pattern learning-based method for temporal expression extraction and normalization from multi-lingual heterogeneous clinical texts

Research article

Clinicians’ perceptions of usefulness of the PubMed4Hh mobile device application for clinical decision making at the point of care: a pilot study