Advertisement

Accounting and Co-Constructing: The Development of a Standard for Electronic Health Records

  • Claus BossenEmail author
Article

Abstract

Patient records are central, constitutive parts of health care and hospitals. Currently, substantial sums are being invested in making patient records electronic, in order to take advantage of IT’s ability to quickly accumulate, compute, and propagate data to multiple sites, to enhance coordination of health care services and cooperation among staff, and make patient records immediately accessible to distributed actors. Investors also aim to increase health care services’ accountability and integration, and improve quality and efficiency. This paper analyses a Danish national standard for electronic health records, on the basis of an application prototype test designed to that standard. The analysis shows that, inscribed in the standard is an ambition to increase the accountability of staff and health care services at the cost of increased work, loss of overview, and fragmentation of patient cases. Significantly, despite the standard having been conceived and developed in a process of co-construction involving clinicians, clinicians did not find it adequate for their work. This analysis argues this was the result of the model of work embedded in the standard coming from a stance external to practice. Subsequently, a flip-over effect occurred, in which the model of work became a model for work. Hence, this paper argues that co-construction processes should not only include users as representatives of a profession, but strive to produce experiences and knowledge intrinsic to practice.

Key words

accountability clinical work co-construction electronic health records health care hospitals participatory design representations user involvement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Sincere thanks to the staff at the Endocrinology Department, and the three anonymous reviewers.

References

  1. Asp, L., & Petersen, J. (2003). A conceptual model for documentation of clinical information in the EHR. From http://www.sst.dk/upload/papermie2003_asp013_dk.pdf.
  2. Atkinson, P. (1995). Medical talk and medical work. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Berg, M. (1999). Accumulating and coordinating: occasions for information technologies in medical work. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(4), 373–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg, M. (2001). Implementing information systems in health care organizations: myths and challenges. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64(2–3), 143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berner, E. S., Detmer, D. E., & Simborg, D. (2005). Will the wave finally break? A brief view of the adoption of electronic medical records in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 12(1), 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bijker, W. E., & Law, J. (Eds.) (1992). Shaping technology/building society. Cambridge (Mass) & London: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomberg, J., & Kensing, F. (1998). Participatory design: issues and concerns. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7, 167–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bossen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2010). User gains and PD aims: assessment from a participatory design project. Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. (pp. 141–150). Sydney, Australia: ACM.Google Scholar
  9. Bowers, J., Button, G., & Sharrock, W. (1995). Workflow from within and without: technology and cooperative work on the print industry shopfloor. In H. Marmolin, Y. Sundblad, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), Proceedings of the fourth European conference on computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 51–66). Dordrecht: Klüwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chantler, C., Clarke, T., & Granger, R. (2006). Information technology in the english national health service. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(18), 2255–2258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cotton, P., Fraser, I. M., & Hill, W. Y. (2000). The social audit agenda—primary health care in a stakeholder society. International Journal of Auditing, 4(1), 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Danish Institute for Health Services Research. (2001). Test of conceptual model for electronic health records, DSI, Copenhagen [In Danish: Aftestning af Begrebsmodel for Elektronisk patientjournal].Google Scholar
  13. Donnelly, W. J., & Brauner, D. J. (1992). Why SOAP is bad for the medical records. Archives of Internal Medicine, 152, 481–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dorda, W., Duftschmid, G., Gerhold, L., Gall, W., & Gambal, J. (2008). Austria’s path toward nationwide electronic health records. Methods of Information in Medicine, 47(2), 117–123.Google Scholar
  15. Dourish, P. (2001). Process description as organisational accounting devices: the dual use of workflow technologies. In C. Ellis & I. Zigurs (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2001 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on supporting group work (pp. 52–60). New York: ACM Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellingsen, G., & Røed, K. (2010). The role of integration in health-based information’ infrastructures. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 19(6), 557–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feinstein, A. R. (1973a). The problems of the ‘problem-oriented medical record’. Annals of Internal Medicine, 78(5), 751–762.Google Scholar
  18. Feinstein, A. R. (1973b). An analysis of diagnostic reasoning. I. The domains and disorders of clinical macrobiology. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 46, 212–232.Google Scholar
  19. Feinstein, A. R. (1973c). An analysis of diagnostic reasoning. II. The strategy of intermediate decisions. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 46, 264–283.Google Scholar
  20. Feinstein, A. R. (1974). An analysis of diagnostic reasoning III. The construction of clinical algorithms. The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 47(1), 5–32.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Gärtner, J., & Wagner, I. (1996). Mapping actors and agendas: political frameworks of systems design and participation. Human Computer Interaction, 11(3), 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glouberman, S., & Mintzberg, H. (2001a). Managing the care of health and the cure of disease—Part I: differentiation. Health Care Management Review, 56–69.Google Scholar
  23. Glouberman, S., & Mintzberg, H. (2001b). Managing the care of health and the cure of disease—Part II: integration. Health Care Management Review, 70–84.Google Scholar
  24. Goldfinger, S. E. (1973). The problem-oriented record: a critique from a believer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 288(12), 606–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greenhalgh, T., Potts, H. W., Wong, G., Bark, P., & Swinglehurst, D. (2009). Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. The Milbank Quarterly, 87(4), 729–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (1997). Ethnography. Principles in practice. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Hanseth, O., & Monteiro, E. (1997). Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 7(4), 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Slack, R., Voss, A., Büscher, M., Rouncefield, M., et al. (2008). Co-realization: towards a principled synthesis of ethnomethodology and participatory design. In M. S. Ackerman, C. A. Halverson, T. Erickson, & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Resources, co-evolution and artifacts (pp. 59–94). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1996). Documents and professional practice: ‘bad’ organisational reasons for ‘good’ clinical records. In M. S. Ackerman (Ed.), Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 354–363). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  30. Ho, L. M., McGehee, S. M., Hedley, A. J., & Leong, J. C. Y. (1999). The application of a computerized problem-oriented medical record system and its impact on patient care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 55(1), 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hurst, J. W. (1971). Ten reasons why lawrence weed is right. The New England Journal of Medicine, 284(1), 51–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalra, D. (2006). Electronic health record standards. In R. Haux & C. Kulikowski (Eds.), IMIA Yearbook of medical informatics 2006 (pp. 136–144). Stuttgart: Shattauer.Google Scholar
  33. Kirsh, D. (1995). The intelligent use of space. Artificial Intelligence, 73(1–2), 31–68.Google Scholar
  34. Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In W. E. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping technology/building society (pp. 225–258). London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics, and culture in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lilley, S. (1996). Refining accountabilities: Opening the black box of management systems success. In R. Munro & J. Mouritsen (Eds.), Accountability. Power, ethos and technologies of managing (pp. 118–143). London: Thomson Business Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lorenzi, N. M., & Riley, R. T. (2004). Managing technological change: Organizational aspects of health informatics. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  38. Martin, D., Mariani, J., & Rouncefield, M. (2009). Practicalities of participation: Stakeholder involvement in an electronic patient records project. In A. Voss, M. Hartswood, R. Procter, M. Rouncefield, R. Slack, & M. Büscher (Eds.), Configuring user-designer relations: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 133–155). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mediq. (2004). Use BEHR in clinical practice. Copenhagen [In Danish: ‘BRUG-GEPKA projektet i Københavns Amt’].Google Scholar
  40. Mellner, C., Selander, H., & Wolodarski, J. (1976). Computerized problem-oriented medical record at Karolinska hospital: format and function, users’ acceptance and patient attitude to questionnaire. Methods of Information in Medicine, 15(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
  41. National Board of Health. (2000). National strategi for IT i sygehusvæsenet 2000–2002 [National Strategy for IT in Health Care]. Copenhagen: National Board of Health.Google Scholar
  42. National Board of Health. (2003). National IT Strategy 2003–2007 for Danish Health Care Service. Copenhagen: Ministry of Interior and Health.Google Scholar
  43. National Board of Health. (2004). Beskrivelse af GEpj—på begrebsniveau [In English: Description of BEHR—on conceptual level. Version 2.0].’ from http://www.sst.dk/applikationer/epj/gepj/020_20040416/index.html.
  44. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Robinson, M., & Bannon, L. (1991). Questioning representations. In L. Bannon, M. Robinson, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW´91. Proceedings of the European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 219–233). Amsterdam: Klüwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rolland, K. H., & Monteiro, E. (2002). Balancing the local and the global in infrastructural information systems. The Information Society, 18(2), 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmidt, K. (1997). Of maps and scripts. The status of formal constructs in cooperative work. Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work: the Integration Challenge (pp. 138–147). Phoenix: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schmidt, K., & Simone, C. (1996). Coordination mechanisms: towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design. Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 5(2–3), 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Singer, E. (2009). A digital health-care revolution: twenty billion dollars might finally turn the U.S. health-care system digital. Technology Review, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22026/ (accessed September 2010).
  50. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strathern, M. (Ed.) (2000). Audit cultures: Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and situated actions. The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Suchman, L. (1993). Technologies of accountability: Of lizard and aeroplanes. In G. Button (Ed.), Technology in working order (pp. 113–126). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  54. Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56–63.Google Scholar
  55. Suchman, L. (2005). Located accountabilities in technology production published by the Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YN, UK, at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Suchman-Located-Accountabilities.pdf.
  56. Timmermans, S., & Berg, M. (2003). The gold standard. The challenge of evidence-based medicine and standardization in health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Törpel, B., Voss, A., Hartswood, M., & Procter, R. (2009). Participatory design: issues and approaches in dynamic constellations of use, design, and research. In A. Voss, M. Hartswood, & R. Procter (Eds.), Configuring user-designer relations: interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 13–29). London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. von Hippel, E. (2006). Democratizing innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  59. Walker, H. K., Hurst, J. W., & Woody, M. F. (Eds.) (1973). Applying the problem-oriented system. New York: Medcom Press.Google Scholar
  60. Weed, L. L. (1969). Medical records, medical education, and patient care. The problem-oriented record as a basic tool. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers.Google Scholar
  61. Wiener, C. L. (2000). The elusive quest: Accountability in hospitals. Hawthorne: Aldine.Google Scholar
  62. Winthereik, B. R., van der Ploeg, I., & Marc, B. (2007). The electronic patient record as a meaningful audit tool: accountability and autonomy in general practitioner work. Science, Technology & Human Values, 32(1), 6–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information and Media StudiesAarhus University, DenmarkAarhus NDenmark

Personalised recommendations