Cargando…

Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation

BACKGROUND: Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) and telemedicine are positioned by policymakers as health information technologies that are integral to achieving improved clinical outcomes and efficiency savings. However, evaluating the extent to which these aims are met poses distinct evaluation chal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Darking, Mary, Anson, Rachel, Bravo, Ferdinand, Davis, Julie, Flowers, Steve, Gillingham, Emma, Goldberg, Lawrence, Helliwell, Paul, Henwood, Flis, Hudson, Claire, Latimer, Simon, Lowes, Paul, Stirling, Ian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24903604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-243
_version_ 1782324793405603840
author Darking, Mary
Anson, Rachel
Bravo, Ferdinand
Davis, Julie
Flowers, Steve
Gillingham, Emma
Goldberg, Lawrence
Helliwell, Paul
Henwood, Flis
Hudson, Claire
Latimer, Simon
Lowes, Paul
Stirling, Ian
author_facet Darking, Mary
Anson, Rachel
Bravo, Ferdinand
Davis, Julie
Flowers, Steve
Gillingham, Emma
Goldberg, Lawrence
Helliwell, Paul
Henwood, Flis
Hudson, Claire
Latimer, Simon
Lowes, Paul
Stirling, Ian
author_sort Darking, Mary
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) and telemedicine are positioned by policymakers as health information technologies that are integral to achieving improved clinical outcomes and efficiency savings. However, evaluating the extent to which these aims are met poses distinct evaluation challenges, particularly where clinical and cost outcomes form the sole focus of evaluation design. We propose that a practice-centred approach to evaluation - in which those whose day-to-day care practice is altered (or not) by the introduction of new technologies are placed at the centre of evaluation efforts – can complement and in some instances offer advantages over, outcome-centric evaluation models. METHODS: We carried out a regional programme of innovation in renal services where a participative approach was taken to the introduction of new technologies, including: a regional EPR system and a system to support video clinics. An ‘action learning’ approach was taken to procurement, pre-implementation planning, implementation, ongoing development and evaluation. Participants included clinicians, technology specialists, patients and external academic researchers. Whilst undergoing these activities we asked: how can a practice-centred approach be embedded into evaluation of health information technologies? DISCUSSION: Organising EPR and telemedicine evaluation around predetermined outcome measures alone can be impractical given the complex and contingent nature of such projects. It also limits the extent to which unforeseen outcomes and new capabilities are recognised. Such evaluations often fail to improve understanding of ‘when’ and ‘under what conditions’ technology-enabled service improvements are realised, and crucially, how such innovation improves care. SUMMARY: Our contribution, drawn from our experience of the case study provided, is a protocol for practice-centred, participative evaluation of technology in the clinical setting that privileges care. In this context ‘practice-centred’ evaluation acts as a scalable, coordinating framework for evaluation that recognises health information technology supported care as an achievement that is contingent and ongoing. We argue that if complex programmes of technology-enabled service innovation are understood in terms of their contribution to patient care and supported by participative, capability-building evaluation methodologies, conditions are created for practitioners and patients to realise the potential of technologies and make substantive contributions to the evidence base underpinning health innovation programmes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4086282
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40862822014-07-09 Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation Darking, Mary Anson, Rachel Bravo, Ferdinand Davis, Julie Flowers, Steve Gillingham, Emma Goldberg, Lawrence Helliwell, Paul Henwood, Flis Hudson, Claire Latimer, Simon Lowes, Paul Stirling, Ian BMC Health Serv Res Correspondence BACKGROUND: Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) and telemedicine are positioned by policymakers as health information technologies that are integral to achieving improved clinical outcomes and efficiency savings. However, evaluating the extent to which these aims are met poses distinct evaluation challenges, particularly where clinical and cost outcomes form the sole focus of evaluation design. We propose that a practice-centred approach to evaluation - in which those whose day-to-day care practice is altered (or not) by the introduction of new technologies are placed at the centre of evaluation efforts – can complement and in some instances offer advantages over, outcome-centric evaluation models. METHODS: We carried out a regional programme of innovation in renal services where a participative approach was taken to the introduction of new technologies, including: a regional EPR system and a system to support video clinics. An ‘action learning’ approach was taken to procurement, pre-implementation planning, implementation, ongoing development and evaluation. Participants included clinicians, technology specialists, patients and external academic researchers. Whilst undergoing these activities we asked: how can a practice-centred approach be embedded into evaluation of health information technologies? DISCUSSION: Organising EPR and telemedicine evaluation around predetermined outcome measures alone can be impractical given the complex and contingent nature of such projects. It also limits the extent to which unforeseen outcomes and new capabilities are recognised. Such evaluations often fail to improve understanding of ‘when’ and ‘under what conditions’ technology-enabled service improvements are realised, and crucially, how such innovation improves care. SUMMARY: Our contribution, drawn from our experience of the case study provided, is a protocol for practice-centred, participative evaluation of technology in the clinical setting that privileges care. In this context ‘practice-centred’ evaluation acts as a scalable, coordinating framework for evaluation that recognises health information technology supported care as an achievement that is contingent and ongoing. We argue that if complex programmes of technology-enabled service innovation are understood in terms of their contribution to patient care and supported by participative, capability-building evaluation methodologies, conditions are created for practitioners and patients to realise the potential of technologies and make substantive contributions to the evidence base underpinning health innovation programmes. BioMed Central 2014-06-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4086282/ /pubmed/24903604 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-243 Text en Copyright © 2014 Darking et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Correspondence
Darking, Mary
Anson, Rachel
Bravo, Ferdinand
Davis, Julie
Flowers, Steve
Gillingham, Emma
Goldberg, Lawrence
Helliwell, Paul
Henwood, Flis
Hudson, Claire
Latimer, Simon
Lowes, Paul
Stirling, Ian
Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
title Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
title_full Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
title_fullStr Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
title_full_unstemmed Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
title_short Practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
title_sort practice-centred evaluation and the privileging of care in health information technology evaluation
topic Correspondence
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4086282/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24903604
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-243
work_keys_str_mv AT darkingmary practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT ansonrachel practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT bravoferdinand practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT davisjulie practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT flowerssteve practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT gillinghamemma practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT goldberglawrence practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT helliwellpaul practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT henwoodflis practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT hudsonclaire practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT latimersimon practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT lowespaul practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation
AT stirlingian practicecentredevaluationandtheprivilegingofcareinhealthinformationtechnologyevaluation