Contributions of activity ergonomics to the design of an electronic health record to support collaborative mental care of children and youth: Preliminary results
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online January 23, 2020
Contributions of activity ergonomics to the design of an electronic health record to support collaborative mental care of children and youth: Preliminary results
The use of electronic health records (EHR) is related to the improvement of service
quality and care coordination. The design of this platform generally focuses on the
individual use of the system and does not integrate the specific needs of workers to
provide support for collaborative activities.
OBJECTIVE:
The study investigated how activity ergonomics (AE) contributed to improve the design
of an EHR that supports the collaborative mental health care of children and youth.
METHODS:
This qualitative study, based on the theoretical framework of AE, used individual and
group interviews and document analysis as research procedures. The data collection
occurred between March and September 2017 in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
RESULTS:
The study highlighted the following points: the characteristics that marked the
different perceptions of workers regarding the use of a communication tool for
collaborative care; the problems related to spreadsheet usability; and the desirable
attributes that should be considered in the conception of a new EHR.
CONCLUSIONS:
The research indicated that AE favors improving the design of an EHR by incorporating
the work dimension into the project.
TeixeiraM, CoutoM,
DelgadoP.Primary care and collaborative care in children and adolescents’
psychosocial interventions: facilitators and barriers. Cien
Saude Colet.
2017;22(6):1933-42.
2.
BowerP, GilbodyS.Managing common mental health disorders in primary care: conceptual models
and evidence base. BMJ.
2005;330(7495):839-42.
3.
D’AmourD, GouletL, LabadieJF, Martin-RodriguezLS,
PineaultR.A model and typology of collaboration between professionals in healthcare
organizations. BMC Health Serv Res.
2008;8(1):188-202.
4.
KatesN, MazowitaG, LemireF, JayabarathanA, BlandR,
SelbyP, IsomuraT, CravenM, GervaisM, AudetD.
The evolution of collaborative mental health care in Canada: A shared
vision for the future. Can Psychiatry.
2010;56(5):1-12.
5.
CifuentesM, FernaldD, GunnR,
DickinsonP, CohenD.
Electronic health record challenges, workarounds, and solutions observed
in practices integrating behavioral health and primary care. J
Am Board Fam Med. 2015;28(Supplement
1): S3-S72.
6.
ZlabekJ, WickusJ, MathiasonM.Early cost and safety benefits of an inpatient electronic health
record. J Am Med Inform Assoc.
2011;18(2):169-72.
7.
CusackC.Electronic health records and electronic prescribing: promise and
pitfalls. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am.
2008;35(1):63-79.
8.
ReitzR, CommonK, FifieldP, StiasnyE.Collaboration in the presence of an electronic health
record. Fam Syst Health.
2012;30(1):72-80.
9.
ReddyM, ShabotM, BradnerE.
Evaluating collaborative features of critical care systems: A
methodological study of information technology in surgical intensive care
units. J Biomed Inform.
2008;41(3):479-87.
10.
GuérinF, LavilleA, DaniellouF, DuraffourgJ, KerguelenA.Compreender o trabalho para transformá-lo: a prática da
ergonomia. São Paulo:
Blucher: Fundação Vanzolini; 2001.
Portuguese.
11.
HubaultF.Do que a ergonomia pode fazer a análise? In: DaniellouF, editor.
A ergonomia em busca de seus princípios: debates epistemológicos.
São Paulo: Blucher;
2004. Portuguese.
12.
DaniellouF.Questões epistemológicas levantadas pela ergonomia de
projeto. In: DaniellouF, editor.
A ergonomia em busca de seus princípios: debates epistemológicos.
São Paulo: Blucher;
2004. Portuguese.
13.
AbrahãoJ, SznelwarL, SilvinoA, SarmetM, PinhoD.Introdução á ergonomia: da prática á teoria. São
Paulo: Blucher; 2009.
Portuguese.
14.
NarimotoLR, CamarottoJA.
How do users design? The case of sugar cane harvester
machines. Work.
2017;57(3):421-32.
15.
LipovayaV, DuarteF, BéguinP.The work activity as an interface among different logics: The case of
distributing food in a university restaurant. Work.
2018;61(4):647-60.
16.
PizoC, MenegonN.
Análise ergonômica do trabalho e o reconhecimento científico do
conhecimento gerado. Production. 2010. p.
657-68.
Portuguese.
17.
BurkhardtJ, SperandioJ.Ergonomia de concepção informática. In: FalzonP, editor.
Ergonomia. São Paulo:
Blucher; 2007.
Portuguese.
GulliksenJ, GoranssonB, BoivieI, BlomkvitS, PerssonJ, CajanderA.
Key principles for user-centered systems design.
Behav Inf Technol.
2003;22(6):397-409.
20.
SimonsenJ, RobertsonT.Routledge International handbook of participatory design.
New York: Routledge;
2013.
21.
ConceiçãoC, SilvaG,
BrobergO, DuarteF.Intermediary objects in the workspace design process: Means of experience
transfer in the offshore sector. Work.
2012;41(Suppl.1):127-35.
22.
ScariotCA, HeemannA, PadovaniS.
Understanding the collaborative-participatory design.
Work.
2012;41(SUPPL.1):2701-5.
23.
BittencourtJM,
DuarteF, BéguinP. From
the past to the future: Integrating work experience into the design
process. Work.
2017;57(3):379-87.
24.
ZhangJ, WaljiM.TURF: toward a unified framework of EHR usability.
J Biomed Inform.
2011;44(6):1056-67.
25.
EllsworthM, DziadzkoM, O’HoroJ, FarrellA, ZhangJ,
HerasevichV.An appraisal of published usability evaluations of electronic health
records via systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc.
2016;21(1):2018-226.
26.
MayringP.Qualitative content analysis. In: FlickU,
KardoffE
von, SteinkeI, editors.
A companion to qualitative research. London,
UK: SAGE Publications, Inc;
2004. p. 159-76.
27.
PattonMQ.
Qualitative evaluation and research methods.
4th ed. London, UK:
SAGE Publications, Inc; 2005.
1245 p.
28.
DaniellouF, BéguinP.Metodologia da ação ergonômica: abordagens do trabalho
real. In: FalzonP, editor.
Ergonomia. São Paulo:
Blucher; 2007.
Portuguese.
29.
De la
GarzaC, Weill-FassinaA.Régulations horizontales et verticales du risque. In:
BencheronT, Weill-FassinaA, editors.
Le travail collectif en ergonomie - perspectives actuelles en
ergonomie. Toulouse:
Octarès; 2000. French.
30.
CarolyS, BarcelliniF.O desenvolvimento da atividade coletiva. In: FalzonP, editor.
Ergonomia construtiva. São Paulo:
Blucher; 2016.
31.
SchmidtK.Cooperative work and its articulation: Requirements for computer
support. Trav Hum.1994;57(4)345-66.
32.
BergI, LangenbergC, vd
BergI, KwakkernaatJ.Considerations for sociotechnical design: experiences with an electronic
patient record in a clinical context. Int J Med Inform.1998;52(1-3):243-51.
33.
SittingD, SinghH.A new societechnical model for studying health information technology in
complex adaptative healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care.
2010;19(Suppl
3):i68-i74.
34.
BéguinP.Conduite de projet et fabrication collective du travail, une approche
développementale, document de synthèse en vue de l’habilitation á diriger des
recherches. Bordeaux:
Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux2010.
35.
SchmidtK, BannonL.Taking CSCW seriously: Supporting articulation work.
Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW).
1992;1(1-2):7-40.
36.
BastienC, ScapinD.A concepção de programas de computador interativos centrada no usuário:
etapas e métodos. In: FalzonP, editor.
Ergonomia. São Paulo:
Blucher; 2007.
Portuguese.
37.
BarcelliniF, BelleghemL
Van, DaniellouF.Design projects as opportunities for the development of
activities. In: FalzonP, editor.
Construtctive Ergonomics. CRC Press-Taylor and Francis
Group; 2014. p.
187-203.
38.
CaprariE, PorsiusJT, D’OlivoP, BloemRM, VehmeijerSBW, StolkN,
et al. Dynamics of an orthopaedic team: Insights to improve teamwork
through a design thinking approach. Work.
2018;61(1):21-39.
39.
BéguinP, CerfM.Formes et enjeux de l’analyse de l’activité pour la conception des systèmes
de travail. @ctivités [Internet].
2004;1(1):54-71.
