Open Access

Background: Availability and usage of individual IT applications have been studied intensively in the past years. Recently, IT support of clinical processes is attaining increasing attention. The underlying construct that describes the IT support of clinical workflows is clinical information logistics. This construct needs to be better understood, operationalised and measured. Objectives: It is therefore the aim of this study to propose and develop a workflow composite score (WCS) for measuring clinical information logistics and to examine its quality based on reliability and validity analyses. Methods: We largely followed the procedural model of MacKenzie and colleagues (2011) for defining and conceptualising the construct domain, for developing the measurement instrument, assessing the content validity, pretesting the instrument, specifying the model, capturing the data and computing the WCS and testing the reliability and validity. Results: Clinical information logistics was decomposed into the descriptors data and information, function, integration and distribution, which embraced the framework validated by an analysis of the international literature. This framework was refined selecting representative clinical processes. We chose ward rounds, pre- and post-surgery processes and discharge as sample processes that served as concrete instances for the measurements. They are sufficiently complex, represent core clinical processes and involve different professions, departments and settings. The score was computed on the basis of data from 183 hospitals of different size, ownership, location and teaching status. Testing the reliability and validity yielded encouraging results: the reliability was high with r(split-half) = 0.89, the WCS discriminated between groups; the WCS correlated significantly and moderately with two EHR models and the WCS received good evaluation results by a sample of chief information officers (n = 67). These findings suggest the further utilisation of the WCS. Conclusion: As the WCS does not assume ideal workflows as a gold standard but measures IT support of clinical workflows according to validated descriptors a high portability of the WCS to other hospitals in other countries is very likely. The WCS will contribute to a better understanding of the construct clinical information logistics.

Objectives: eHealth and innovation are often regarded as synonyms - not least because eHealth technologies and applications are new to their users. This position paper challenges this view and aims at exploring the nature of eHealth innovation against the background of common definitions of innovation and facts from the biomedical and health informatics literature. A good understanding of what constitutes innovative eHealth developments allows the degree of innovation to be measured and interpreted. Methods: To this end, relevant biomedical and health informatics literature was searched mainly in Medline and ACM digital library. This paper presents seven facts about implementing and applying new eHealth developments hereby drawing on the experience published in the literature. Results: The facts are: 1. eHealth innovation is relative. 2. Advanced clinical practice is the yardstick. 3. Only used and usable eHealth technology can give birth to eHealth innovatio. 4. One new single eHealth function does not make a complex eHealth innovation. 5. eHealth innovation is more evolution than revolution. 6. eHealth innovation is often triggered behind the scenes; and 7. There is no eHealth innovation without sociocultural change. Conclusions: The main conclusion of the seven facts is that eHealth innovations have many ingredients: newness, availability, advanced clinical practice with proven outcomes, use and usability, the supporting environment, other context factors and the stakeholder perspectives. Measuring eHealth innovation is thus a complex matter. To this end we propose the development of a composite score that expresses comprehensively the nature of eHealth innovation and that breaks down its complexity into the three dimensions: i) eHealth adoption, ii) partnership with advanced clinical practice, and iii) use and usability of eHealth. In order to better understand the momentum and mechanisms behind eHealth innovation the fourth dimension, iv) eHealth supporting services and means, needs to be studied. Conceptualising appropriate measurement instruments also requires eHealth innovation to be distinguished from eHealth sophistication, performance and quality, although innovation is intertwined with these concepts. The demanding effort for defining eHealth innovation and measuring it properly seem worthwhile and promise advances in creating better systems. This paper thus intends to stimulate the necessary discussion.

Introduction: Establishing continuity of care in handovers at changes of shift is a challenging endeavor that is jeopardized by time pressure and errors typically occurring during synchronous communication. Only if the outgoing and incoming persons manage to collaboratively build a common ground for the next steps of care is it possible to ensure a proper continuation. Electronic systems, in particular electronic patient record systems, are powerful providers of information but their actual use might threaten achieving a common understanding of the patient if they force clinicians to work asynchronously. In order to gain a deeper understanding of communication failures and how to overcome them, we performed a systematic review of the literature, aiming to answer the following four research questions: (1a) What are typical errors and (1b) their consequences in handovers? (2) How can they be overcome by conventional strategies and instruments? (3) electronic systems? (4) Are there any instruments to support collaborative grounding? Methods: We searched the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, and COCHRANE for articles on handovers in general and in combination with the terms electronic record systems and grounding that covered the time period of January 2000 to May 2012. Results: The search led to 519 articles of which 60 were then finally included into the review. We found a sharp increase in the number of relevant studies starting with 2008. As could be documented by 20 studies that addressed communication errors, omission of detailed patient information including anticipatory guidance during handovers was the greatest problem. This deficiency could be partly overcome by structuring and systematizing the information, e.g. according to Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation schema (SBAR), and by employing electronic tools integrated in electronic records systems as 23 studies on conventional and 22 articles on electronic systems showed. Despite the increase in quantity and quality of the information achieved, it also became clear that there was still the unsolved problem of anticipatory guidance and presenting “the full story” of the patient. Only a small number of studies actually addressed how to establish common ground with the help of electronic tools. Discussion: The increase in studies manifests the rise of great interest in the handover scenario. Electronic patient record systems proved to be excellent information feeders to handover tools, but their role in collaborative grounding is unclear. Concepts of how to move to joint information processing and IT-enabled social interaction have to be implemented and tested.

Wie können intelligente Maschinen Pflegekräfte entlasten? Und wie weit ist die Digitalisierung bereits in der Pflege angekommen? Und wie muss die weiter fortschreitende Technisierung aussehen, damit sie zukunftsfähig ist?