The objective of this study was to optimize a planned audit and feedback (A&F) intervention for home and community care through incorporating user-centered design principles. Phase 1 comprised the development of a paper prototype, followed by testing of the prototype using semistructured interviews and focus groups. Phase 2 involved the development of a revised and online prototype based on the results of Phase 1, followed by user testing. A total of 39 participants across Phase 1 (n = 33) and Phase 2 (n = 6) provided input into the design of the A&F intervention. Key changes included improving clarity of the variables, reducing cognitive load, and highlighting opportunities for action. Preliminary findings suggest potential usefulness in this approach to optimize home care management.
Mayo-WilsonEGrantSBurtonJParsonsAUnderhillKMontgoeryP.Preventive home visits for mortality, morbidity, and institutionalization in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e89257. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089257.
3.
ChattopadhyayAFanYChattopadhyayS.Cost-efficiency in Medicaid long-term support services: the role of home and community based services. Springerplus. 2013;2(1):305.
4.
FlottorpSJamtvedtGGibisBMcKneeM.Using audit and feedback to health professionals to improve the quality and safety of health care. World Health Organization: Belgian EU Presidency Conference, La Hulpe, Belgium; 2010.
5.
IversNJamtvedtGFlottorpS. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6):CD000259. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3.
6.
BrehautJCColquhounHLEvaKW. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016, 164(6): 435-441. doi:10.7326/M15-2248.
7.
International Standards Organization (ISO). ISO/TR 18529 Ergonomics—Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction—Human-Centred Lifecycle Process Descriptions. Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization; 2000.
8.
DonettoSPierriPTsianakasVRobertG.Experience-based co-design and healthcare improvement: realizing participatory design in the public sector. Des J. 2012;18(2):227-248.
HsiehHFShannonSE.Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
13.
FonteynMEKuipersBGrobeSJ.A description of think aloud method and protocol analysis. Qual Health Res. 1993;3(4):430-441.
14.
RobertGCornwellJLocockLPurushothamASturneyGGagerM.Patients and staff as codesigners of healthcare services. BMJ. 2015;350:g7714.
15.
ZieblandSCoulterACalabreseJDLocockL.Understanding and Using Health Experiences: Improving Patient Care. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2013.
16.
BrownBBalatsoukasPWilliamsRSperrinWBuchanI.Interface design recommendations for computerised clinical audit and feedback: hybrid usability evidence from a research-led system. Int J Med Inform. 2016;94:191-206.
17.
KushnirukAWVimlaPL.Cognitive and usability engineering methods for the evaluation of clinical information systems. J Biomed Inform. 2004;37(1):56-76.
18.
Landis-LewisZBrehautJCHochheiserHDouglasGPJacobsonRS.Computer-supported feedback message tailoring: theory-informed adaptation of clinical audit and feedback for learning and behavior change. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):12.
19.
FrancisJJJohnstonMRobertsonC. What is an adequate sample size? operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229-1245. doi:10.1080/08870440903194015.
