Top

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

Development process of a mobile electronic medical record for nurses: a single case study

Authors: Danielle M. Vossebeld, Erik C. N. Puik, Joris E. N. Jaspers, Marieke J. Schuurmans

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2019

Abstract

Background

With the growing shortage of nurses, labor-saving technology has become more important. In health care practice, however, the fit with innovations is not easy. The aim of this study is to analyze the development of a mobile input device for electronic medical records (MEMR), a potentially labor-saving application supported by nurses, that failed to meet the needs of nurses after development.

Method

In a case study, we used an axiomatic design framework as an evaluation tool to visualize the mismatches between customer needs and the design parameters of the MEMR, and trace these mismatches back to (preliminary) decisions in the development process. We applied a mixed-method research design that consisted of analyzing of 118 external and internal files and working documents, 29 interviews and shorter inquiries, a user test, and an observation of use. By factoring and grouping the findings, we analyzed the relevant categories of mismatches.

Results

The involvement of nurses during the development was extensive, but not all feedback was, or could not be, used effectively to improve the MEMR. The mismatches with the most impact were found to be: (1) suboptimal supportive technology, (2) limited functionality of the app and input device, and (3) disruption of nurses’ workflow. Most mismatches were known by the IT department when the MEMR was offered to the units as a product. Development of the MEMR came to a halt because of limited use.

Conclusion

Choices for design parameters, made during the development of labor-saving technology for nurses, may conflict with the customer needs of nurses. Even though the causes of mismatches were mentioned by the IT department, the nurse managers acquired the MEMR based on the idea behind the app. The effects of the chosen design parameters should not only be compared to the customer needs, but also be assessed with nurses and nurse managers for the expected effect on the workflow.

Available only for authorised users

UMC Utrecht. Wim van den Hoeven & Henrice Ester - Ronde 1 Ureka Mega Challenge. 2012 . Available from: https://youtu.be/A5tJAo1Rzl8. [cited 6 Oct 2016]

European Commission. Commission staff working document on an action plan for the EU health workforce. 2012. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/health/sites/health/files/workforce/docs/staff_working_doc_healthcare_workforce_en.pdf.

Junglas I, Abraham C, Ives B. Mobile technology at the frontlines of patient care: Understanding fit and human drives in utilization decisions and performance. Decis Support Syst. 2009;46:634–47. Available from:. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.11.012.CrossRef

van Eekeren P, van Zuilen G. De keuzes zijn gemaakt. ZORGVISIE ict. 2016;03:26–9.CrossRef

Lu Y-C, Xiao Y, Sears A, Jacko JA. A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74:409–22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.03.001.

Gagnon M-P, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P, et al. Systematic Review of Factors Influencing the Adoption of Information and Communication Technologies by Healthcare Professionals. J Med Syst. 2012;36:241–77. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-010-9473-4.

Gagnon M-P, Ngangue P, Payne-Gagnon J, Desmartis M. m-Health adoption by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2016;23:212–20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocv052.

Fischer S, Stewart TE, Mehta S, Wax R, Lapinsky SE. Handheld Computing in Medicine. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2003;10:139–49. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1180.

Benyon D. Designing interactive systems. 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Limited; 2010.

10.

Powell-Cope G, Nelson AL, Patterson ES. Patient Care Technology and Safety. In: Hughes RG, editor. Patient Saf. Qual. An Evidence-Based Handb. Nurses. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. Chapter 50. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK2686/.

11.

Gould JD, Lewis C. Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM . New York, New York, USA: ACM Press; 1985;28:300–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1145/800045.801579.

12.

Chang P, Kuo M-CJ, Lu S-J. Case Study 4: Mobile Nursing in Health Information Systems. In: Hannah K, Hussey P, Kennedy M, Ball M, editors. Introd. to Nurs. Informatics. Health Inf. 2015. p. 355–70. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2999-8_18.

13.

Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information Technology. Mangement Inf Syst Res Cent. 1989;13:319–40.

14.

Holden RJ, Karsh B-T. The Technology Acceptance Model: Its past and its future in health care. J Biomed Inf. 2010;43:159–72. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2009.07.002.

15.

Kuo K-M, Liu C-F, Ma C-C. An investigation of the effect of nurses’ technology readiness on the acceptance of mobile electronic medical record systems. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13:88. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-13-88.

16.

Kim S, Lee K-H, Hwang H, Yoo S. Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;16:12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0249-8.

17.

Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information Technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27:425–78.

18.

Suh NP. The principles of design. Oxford Ser. Adv. Manuf. 1990.

19.

Brown CA. Elements of axiomatic design: a simple and practical approach to engineering design. 2006;

20.

Suh NP. Designing-in of quality through axiomatic design. IEEE Trans Reliab. 1995;44:256–64 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/24.387380.

21.

Thompson MK. Improving the requirements process in Axiomatic Design Theory. CIRP Ann. 2013;62:115–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2013.03.114.

22.

Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. 2014.

23.

Holtzblatt K, Burns Wendell J, Wood S. Rapid contextual design: a how-to guide to key techniques for user-centered design. Elsevier; 2004.

24.

Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis. 3rd ed. Qual. Data Anal. SAGE Publications, Inc; 2013.

25.

UMC Utrecht. UMC Utrecht Nurse mapp. 2012. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COtQGTUXkJM [cited 14 Nov 2016]

26.

Heerink D. Should health records go mobile? [Utrecht]: Utrecht University; 2014.

27.

Standing S, Standing C. Mobile technology and healthcare: the adoption issues and systemic problems. Int J Electron Healthc. 2008;4:221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEH.2008.022661.

28.

Yeo K, Lee K, Kim J-M, Kim T-H, Choi Y-H, Jeong W-J, et al. Pitfalls and Security Measures for the Mobile EMR System in Medical Facilities. Healthc Inform Res. 2012;18:125. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2012.18.2.125.

29.

Cohen JF, Coleman E, Kangethe MJ. An importance-performance analysis of hospital information system attributes: A nurses’ perspective. Int J Med Inform. [internet]. Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 2015;86:82–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.10.010.

30.

Bridgelal Ram M, Grocott PR, HCM W. Issues and challenges of involving users in medical device development. Heal Expect. 2008;11:63–71. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00464.x.

31.

Shah SGS, Robinson I. Medical device technologies: who is the user? Int J Healthc Technol Manag. 2008;9:181–97.

32.

Shah SGS, Robinson I. Benefits of and barriers to involving users in medical device technology development and evaluation. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23:131–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266462307051677.

33.

Shah SGS, Robinson I. User involvement in healthcare technology development and assessment: structured literature review. Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2006;19:500–15.

34.

Hamer S, Cipriano P. Involving nurses in developing new technology. Nurs Times. 2013;109:18–9. Available from: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/24380174 .

35.

Money AG, Barnett J, Kuljis J, Craven MP, Martin JL, Young T. The role of the user within the medical device design and development process: medical device manufacturers’ perspectives. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011;11:15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-11-15.

36.

Girgenti A, Pacifici B, Ciappi A, Giorgetti A. An Axiomatic Design Approach for Customer Satisfaction through a Lean Start-up Framework. Procedia CIRP. 2016;53:151–7. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2016.06.101.

37.

Bragason G, Þorsteinsson S, Karlsson RI, Grosse N, Foley JT. Heat-activated Parachute Release System. Thompson MK, Giorgetti A, Citti P, Matt D, Suh NP, editors. Procedia CIRP. Elsevier B.V.; 2015;34:131–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.07.060.

38.

Bauldoff GS, Kirkpatrick B, Sheets DJ, Mays B, Curran CR. Implementation of handheld devices. Nurse Educ. 2008;33:244–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNE.0000334788.22675.fd.

Title: Development process of a mobile electronic medical record for nurses: a single case study
Authors: Danielle M. Vossebeld
Erik C. N. Puik
Joris E. N. Jaspers
Marieke J. Schuurmans
Publication date: 01-12-2019
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-018-0726-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Development process of a mobile electronic medical record for nurses: a single case study

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition

Using the distance between sets of hierarchical taxonomic clinical concepts to measure patient similarity

Predicting life expectancy with a long short-term memory recurrent neural network using electronic medical records

How professional capital and team heterogeneity affect the demands of online team-based medical service

Promoting healthy teenage behaviour across three European countries through the use of a novel smartphone technology platform, PEGASO fit for future: study protocol of a quasi-experimental, controlled, multi-Centre trial

A privacy-preserving distributed filtering framework for NLP artifacts