Most common sociotechnical dimensions: individual and Combinations. Note: only categories with 5 or more events shown.

Most common sociotechnical dimensions: individual and Combinations. Note: only categories with 5 or more events shown.

Source publication
Article
Full-text available
Background The adoption of technology in health care settings is often touted as an opportunity to improve patient safety. While some adverse events can be reduced by health information technologies, technology has also been implicated in or attributed to safety events. To date, most studies on this topic have focused on acute care settings. Object...

Citations

Article
Background Although intended to support improvement, the rapid adoption and evolution of technologies in health care can also bring about unintended consequences related to safety. In this project, an embedded researcher with expertise in patient safety and clinical education worked with a clinical informatics team to examine safety and harm related to health information technologies (HITs) in primary and community care settings. The clinical informatics team participated in learning activities around relevant topics (eg, human factors, high reliability organizations, and sociotechnical systems) and cocreated a process to address safety events related to technology (ie, safety huddles and sociotechnical analysis of safety events). Objective This study aimed to explore clinical informaticians’ experiences of incorporating safety practices into their work. Methods We used a qualitative descriptive design and conducted web-based focus groups with clinical informaticians. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. Results A total of 10 informants participated. Barriers to addressing safety and harm in their context included limited prior knowledge of HIT safety, previous assumptions and perspectives, competing priorities and organizational barriers, difficulty with the reporting system and processes, and a limited number of reports for learning. Enablers to promoting safety and mitigating harm included participating in learning sessions, gaining experience analyzing reported events, participating in safety huddles, and role modeling and leadership from the embedded researcher. Individual outcomes included increased ownership and interest in HIT safety, the development of a sociotechnical systems perspective, thinking differently about safety, and increased consideration for user perspectives. Team outcomes included enhanced communication within the team, using safety events to inform future work and strategic planning, and an overall promotion of a culture of safety. Conclusions As HITs are integrated into care delivery, it is important for clinical informaticians to recognize the risks related to safety. Experiential learning activities, including reviewing safety event reports and participating in safety huddles, were identified as particularly impactful. An HIT safety learning initiative is a feasible approach for clinical informaticians to become more knowledgeable and engaged in HIT safety issues in their work.