Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Process models are powerful tools that facilitate workflow assessment. Stakeholders in healthcare technology projects use process models, but little is known about how current modeling notations support domain-specific challenges of understanding healthcare workflow. The aim of this study was to evaluate how well members of two healthcare stakeholder groups understand clinical processes modeled with Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) vs. a novel Health Process Notation (HPN). Engineers and healthcare-trained professionals were presented with process models and were tested for comprehension of processes and their perception of both notations. Participants showed a better understanding of relationships within the process and performed more efficiently with HPN. Nonetheless, BPMN was effective for representing sequences and task allocations. Professional background influenced certain aspects of stakeholders’ performance. The usefulness and ease of use of both notations were rated highly, suggesting that workflow models might help stakeholders assess the impact of technological change.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ash

J. S.

Berg

Coiera

(2004). Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: The nature of patient care information system- related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc., 11, 104-112. doi: 10.1197/jamia.MI471

Baxter

Sommerville

(2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to system engineering. Interacting with Computers, 23, 4-17. doi: 10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003

Berg

Toussaint

(2003). The mantra of modeling and the forgotten powers of paper: a sociotechnical view on the development of process-oriented ICT in health care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 69, 223-234.

Coiera

(2007). Putting the technical back into socio-technical systems research. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 76(S1), 98-103.

Coiera

Aarts

Kulikowski

(2012). The Dangerous Decade. JAMIA, 19, 2-5. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000674

Ekstrom

R. B.

French

J. W.

Harman

H. H.

Dermen

(1976). Manual for kit of factor-referenced cognitive tests. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Feltovich

P. J.

Hoffman

R. R.

Woods

Roesler

(2004). Keeping it too simple: How the reductive tendency affects cognitive engineering. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 19(3), 90-94.

Gemino

Wand

(2004). A framework for empirical evaluation of conceptual modeling techniques. Requirements Engineering, 9, 248-260. doi: 10.1007/s00766-004-0204-6

Gemino

Wand

(2005). Complexity and clarity in conceptual modeling: Comparison of mandatory and optional properties. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 310-326. doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2004.12.009

10.

Jones

Koppel

Ridgely

Palen

Harrison

(2011). Guide to Reducing Unintended Consequences of Electronic Health Records Prepared by RAND Corporation under Contract No. HHSA290200600017I, Task Order #5

11.

Jun

Ward

Morris

Clarkson

(2009) Health care process modeling: Which method when? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 21(3), 214-224.

12.

Lenz

Reichert

(2007). IT support for healthcare processes- Premises, challenges, perspectives. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 61, 39-58. doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2006.04.007

13.

Mendling

Strembeck

Recker

(2012). Factors of process model comprehension- Findings from a series of experiments. Decision Support Systems, 53, 195-206. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2011.12.013

14.

Parsons

Cole

(2005). What do the picture mean? Guidelines for experimental evaluation of representation fidelity in diagrammatical conceptual modeling techniques. Data and Knowledge Engineering, 55, 327-342. doi: 10.1016/j.datak.2004.12.008

15.

Perry

S. J.

Wears

R. L.

(2012). Underground adaptations: case studies from health care. Cognition, Technology and Work, 14(3), 253-260. doi: 0.1007/s10111-011-0207-2

16.

Recker

Rosemann

Green

Indulska

(2011). Do ontological deficiencies in modeling grammars matter? MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 57-79.

17.

Recker

(2010). Opportunities and constraints: the current struggle with BPMN. Business Process Management Journal, 16(1), 181-201. doi: 10.1108/14637151011018001

18.

Stitzlein

Sanderson

Beltran Orihuela

Jack

Venkatesh

(2011). Evaluating the impact of technological change in a critical care unit: Towards a model to support stakeholder envisionment. Proceedings of the 55^th HFES Annual Meeting, 55, 650-654.

19.

Stitzlein

Sanderson

Beltran Orihuela

Jack

Venkatesh

(2011). Testing a model to help analysts understand, evaluate, and make inferences about health technology change. Ergonomics Australia-HFESA 2011 conference edition, 11(44), 1-6.

20.

White

S. A.

(2004). Introduction to BPMN. 11. Retrieved from OMG Business Process Model and Notation website: http://www.omg.org/bpmn/Documents/Introduction_to_BPMN.pdf.

Understanding healthcare processes

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References