Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Technostress in Healthcare

150 views

Published on

Technostress is one of many factors holding our healthcare system back. This presentation contains the results of research performed in healthcare settings and proposes a new approach to reducing the technostress induced by the electronic healthcare systems.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Technostress in Healthcare

  1. 1. Reducing Stress in Health Care: Evidence From Using an Integration Design Model Rob Keefer, PhD
 Lisa Douglas, PhD
  2. 2. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Big Idea Technostress is real and can be reduced using an integration design model.
  3. 3. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Technostress is Real
  4. 4. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Technostress in Healthcare 1 Widera, E., Chang, A., & Chen, H. (2010). Presenteeism: A public health hazard. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(11), 1244-1247. 2 Smith, M., Carayon, P., Sanders, K., Lim, S., & Legrande, D. (1992). Employee stress and health complaints in jobs with and without electronic performance monitoring. Applied Ergonomics, 23(1), 17-27. 3 Al-Abri, R. (2007). Managing change in healthcare. Oman Medical Journal, 22(3), 9-10. 4 Friedberg, M., et al. (2013). Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy. RAND Corporation Research Report. ISBN 978-0-8330-8220-6 Person-Technology Fit Model* 3 potential sources of stress designed into a system: Intrusive (presenteeism1 and anonymity2) Dynamic (pace of change3) Usability (usefulness, complexity, and reliability4) *Ayyagari, R., Grover, V., & Russell, P. (2011).
  5. 5. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Integration Design Model
  6. 6. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Classic Model Typical questions in user research: Traditional Interaction Questions Additional Synergistic Questions What is the user trying to accomplish? Why is this important? Are the user goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. collaboration) What does the user need to know to accomplish the goal? Why? What is the user’s reasoning process to solve this problem? How does the user feel while performing a task? What near-real time information does the user want to know? What is the machine trying to accomplish? Why is this important? Are the machine goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. tracking) What does the machine need to know to accomplish the goal? Why? What is the algorithm, or machine’s reasoning process, to solve this problem? What information does the machine need to monitor and radiate appropriately? Does the system promote the desired emotions of the user? + + + + + + Research Users
  7. 7. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Integration Design Model Researchers Users Developers A Synergistic Approach
  8. 8. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Integration Design Model Let’s add a set of questions to our research: Traditional Interaction Questions Additional Synergistic Questions What is the user trying to accomplish? Why is this important? Are the user goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. collaboration) What does the user need to know to accomplish the goal? Why? What is the user’s reasoning process to solve this problem? How does the user feel while performing a task? What near-real time information does the user want to know? What is the machine trying to accomplish? Why is this important? Are the machine goals able to be categorized into themes? (i.e. tracking) What does the machine need to know to accomplish the goal? Why? What is the algorithm, or machine’s reasoning process, to solve this problem? What information does the machine need to monitor and radiate appropriately? Does the system promote the desired emotions of the user? + + + + + +
  9. 9. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Results
  10. 10. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Methodology 57 Participants: Registered Nurse: 55 Physician: 1 Hospital Tech: 1 Evaluation Method: No. Research Projects: 9 SUS: 5-point Likert Scale Subjective: 1-10 continuum
  11. 11. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Existing Systems
  12. 12. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Existing Systems NOTE: Interact with up to 10 disparate systems to complete tasks 44.5
  13. 13. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Initial Releases
  14. 14. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Initial Releases NOTE: Focus on consolidating systems, increasing efficiency, reducing cognitive workload
  15. 15. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Following Releases NOTE: Support for Multitasking Summarization of Information
  16. 16. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Continued Success NOTE: Further Experimentation Continued Learning
  17. 17. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Final Releases NOTE: Last Known Sighting Medication Review Support
  18. 18. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Results NOTE: Unpaired t-test: t = 6.0504, p < 0.001 MD=18.90 (in Conf Interval) M1 M2
  19. 19. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Conclusion Technostress is real and can be reduced using an integration design model.
  20. 20. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Further Research A recent study*suggests that perception of usability (SUS) and mental workload may be independent, not fully overlapping, constructs. Further research will introduce mental workload scores (NASA Task Load Index). *Longo, L. (2017). Subjective Usability, Mental Workload Assessments and Their Impact on Objective Human Performance. In: Bernhaupt R., Dalvi G., Joshi A., K. Balkrishan D., O'Neill J., Winckler M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2017. INTERACT 2017. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10514. Springer. 202 - 223 We plan to gather more data to support and refine the integration design model seeking to incorporate trust and shared values.
  21. 21. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Questions Rob Keefer, PhD rob.Keefer@pomiet.com @rbkeefer
  22. 22. pomiet.com @rbkeefer Usability Testing Results Study Focus N SUS Score 1-10 Rating Current System 10 44.5 - Dashboard 6 69 - Homepage 6 72 - Multitasking 6 88 8.6 Progress Notes 5 89 9.4 Header Info 6 84 9.2 Last Known Sight 6 91 8.4 Assessments 7 - 9.3 Med. Review 6 95 9.4 Alerts 4 - 10 Mean 5.7 84 91.9

×