Advertisement

Standardizing Work in Healthcare Through Architecture, Routines and Technologies

  • Rune PedersenEmail author
Conference paper

Abstract

This chapter presents an in-depth longitudinal study of hospital work. It discusses standardization after the introduction of a computer-mediated nurse–nurse/interdisciplinary handover in a cardiology ward and its effect on collaborative work activities. The standardization also plays out in the physical architecture adopted by the hospital, which impact on the “who” and “how” collaboration progress—the impact of standardized spaces. The chapter focuses on the constant strive in health care to make work practice more effective by employing an increasingly broader approach towards standardization. The number of involved standards is central. Typically for this have been the introduction of the electronic patient record (EPR) system and a following chain of standards made feasible through possibilities from using an EPR system. Sociomateriality is used to illuminate the fact that standardization efforts cannot be investigated as isolated efforts, rather as one of several social and material interconnected ones. Particular to the case was how the physician–nurse handover was made computer mediated, which involves or alter interdisciplinary collaboration in the handover process. Although increased efficiency has been successfully achieved, the chapter discusses how altering some work impacts other processes, especially interdisciplinary collaboration, social relations, and informal learning. Further, architecture has gained sparse attention in the standardization of work processes in health care. Architecture contributes to standardized work practice when striving for efficiency and also become a conflicting standard in interdisciplinary collaboration.

Keywords

Architecture Collaboration Conflicting standards Electronic Patient Record (EPR) Sociomateriality Standardization 

References

  1. 1.
    Pedersen, R., Ellingsen, G., Monteiro, E.: The standardized nurse: mission impossible? IFIP. Adv. Inf. Commun. Technol. 356/2011, 163–178 (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-21364-9_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Timmermans, S., Berg, M.: Standardization in action: achieving universalism and localization through medical protocols. Soc. Stud. Sci. 27, 111–134 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ellingsen, G., Monteiro, E., Munkvold, G.: Standardization of work: co-constructed practice. Inf. Soc. 23, 309–326 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bowker, G.C., Star, S.L.: Sorting Things Out. Classification and Its Consequences. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    British Medical Association.: Safe Handover: Safe Patients. Guidance on Clinical Handover for Clinicians and Managers. British Medical Association, London (2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riesenberg, L.A., Leisch, J.J.M.: Cunningham, nursing handoffs: a systematic review of the literature. Am. J. Nurs. 110, 24–34 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berg, M.: Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int. J. Med. Inform. 55, 87–101 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schmidt, S.K., Werle, R.: Coordinating Technology. Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunication. The MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanseth, O., Monteiro, E., Hatling, M.: Developing information infrastructure standards: the tension between standardisation and flexibility. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 21(4), 407–426 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanseth, O., Lundberg, N.: Designing work oriented infrastructures. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. 10(3–4), 347–372 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pollock, N., Williams, R., D’Adderio, L.: Global software and its provenance: generification work in the production of organizational software packages. Soc. Stud. Sci. 37(2), 254–280 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    IOM.: Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. IOM. National Academy Press, Washington, DC (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schaper, L.K., Pervan, G.P.: A model of information and communication technology acceptance and utilization by occupational therapists. Int. J. Med. Inform. 76(Suppl 1), 212–221 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berg, M.: Accumulating and coordinating: occasions for information technology in medical work. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. 8, 373–401 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Winman, T., Rystedt, H.: Electronic patient records in action: transforming information into professionally relevant knowledge. Health Inform. J. 17(1), 51–62 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kerr, M.P.: A qualitative study of shift handover practice and function from a socio-technical perspective. J. Adv. Nurs. 37(2), 125–134 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nadzam, D.M.: Nurses’ role in communication and patient safety. J. Nurs. Care Qual. 24, 184–188 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sexton, A., Chan, C., Elliot, M., Stuart, J., Jayasuriya, R., Crookes, P.: Nursing handovers: do we really need them? J. Nurs. Manag. 12, 37–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meum, T., Ellingsen, G.: “Sound of silence”—Changing from oral to a computermediated handover. Behav. Inform. Technol. 30(4), (2011). (Special issue: Medical team meetings: Utilizing technology to enhance communication, collaboration and decision-making)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Arora, V.M., et al.: A theoretical framework and competency-based approach to improving handoffs. Qual. Saf. Health. Care. 17, 11–14 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munkvold, G., et al.: Formalizing work—reallocating redundancy. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. 6, 59–68 (2006)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hartwood, M., et al.: Making a case in medical work: implications for the electronic medical record. Comput. Support. Coop. Work. 12(3), 241–266 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hughes, D.: When nurse knows best: some aspects of nurse/doctor interaction in a casualty department. Soc. Health. Illn. 10, 1–22 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Atkinson, P.: Medical Talk and Medical Work. Sage Publication Ltd., London (1995)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Monahan, T.: Picturing technological change: the materiality of information infrastructures in public education. Technol. Pedagog. Educ. 17(2), 89–101 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Winner, L.: The Wale and the Reactor: A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1986)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Orlikowski, W.: Sociomaterial practices: exploring technology at work. Organ. Stud. 28(9), 1435–1448 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Leonardi, P.M., Barley, S.R.: Materiality and change: challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Inform. Organ. 18, 159–176 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Perrow, C.: Complexity, coupling and catastrophe. In: Normal Accidents, pp. 62–100. Princeton University Press (ed.), Princeton (1984)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Walsham, G.: Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method. Eur. J. Inform. Syst. 4, 74–81 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Klein, H., Myers, M.: A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Q. 23, 67–94 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Orlikowski, W., Baroudi, J.: Studying information technology in organizations: Research approaches and assumptions. Inform. Syst. Res. 2(1), 143–169 (1991)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ash, J.S., Berg, M., Coiera, E.: 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 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Malterud, K.: Kvalitativ metode I medisinsk forskning: 2. utgave. Universitetsforlaget. (2003)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    NANDA-1.: Nursing diagnosis: Definitions and classification 2007–2008. In: Heather Herdman, T. (ed.) NANDA international, p. 6. Weley (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bulechek, G.M., Butcher, H.K., Dochterman, J.M.: NIC. Nursing Interventions Classification, 5th edn. Mosby/Elsevier, St. Louis (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Clinical Medicine, Telemedicine and e-health research groupUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations