Advertisement

User Experience Considerations for Patient-Centered Handoffs in Surgical Oncology

  • Nancy Staggers
  • Marge Benham-Hutchins
  • Laura Heermann Langford
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8515)

Abstract

Handoffs, the transfer of care responsibility from one provider to another, commonly occur in intra-disciplinary silos that exclude patients. Little is known about patient preferences about handoff participation in surgical oncology and key information needs including user experience (UX) considerations. This exploratory, descriptive study was conducted at a cancer center in the western United States using a purposeful sampling technique to select 20 surgical oncology in-patients. The team used methodological pluralism for data collection: naturalistic observations, interviews, field notes, and artifact capture. Data analysis included systematic steps and content analysis consistent with accepted qualitative research methods. The analysis resulted in 356 codes synthesized into 15 categories and 3 themes: Depends Upon How Sick I Am, I Want To Know Everything, and My Life Is In Their Hands. Fifteen participants expressed varying levels of interest in participating in handoffs, and 18 of the 20 wanted to know "everything" about themselves. Initial categories of patients’ information needs were developed. An opportunity exists to expand health informatics tools to inpatients and their families and design them from patients’ perspectives. UX considerations are outlined to expand informatics tools for collaborative decision making to inpatient activities and include person-centered applications, electronic white boards to consider user diversity and tasks as well as context-sensitive information design.

Keywords

Handoffs user experience qualitative research 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abraham, J., Kannampallil, T., Patel, B., Almoosa, K., Patel, V.: Ensuring patient safety in care transitions: an empirical evaluation of a handoff intervention tool. In: AMIA Symposium on American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) Annual Symposium Proceedings, pp. 17–26 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osborn, R., Squires, D.: International perspectives on patient engagement: results from the 2011 Commonwealth Fund Survey. The Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 35(2), 118–128 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McMurray, A., Chaboyer, W., Wallis, M., Johnson, J., Gehrke, T.: Patients’ perspectives of bedside nursing handover. Collegian 18(1), 19–26 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rappaport, D.I., Ketterer, T.A., Nilforoshan, V., Sharif, I.: Family-centered rounds: views of families, nurses, trainees, and attending physicians. Clinical Pediatriatrics (Phila) 51(3), 260–266 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flink, M., Hesselink, G., Pijnenborg, L., et al.: The key actor: a qualitative study of patient participation in the handover process in Europe. BMJ Quality & Safety 21(suppl. 1), i89–i96 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaboyer, W., McMurray, A., Johnson, J., Hardy, L., Wallis, M., Sylvia Chu, F.: Bedside handover: quality improvement strategy to transform care at the bedside. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 24(2), 136–142 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilson, M.L., Murphy, L.S., Newhouse, R.: Patients’ access to their health information: a meaningful-use mandate. The Journal of Nursing Administration 42(11), 493–496 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staggers, N., Benham-Hutchins, M.B., Heermann-Langford, L.: Exploring patient-centered handoffs in surgical oncology. Journal of Participatory Medicine 5 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frosch, D.L., May, S.G., Rendle, K.A., Tietbohl, C., Elwyn, G.: Authoritarian physicians and patients’ fear of being labeled ’difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision making. Health Affairs 31(5), 1030–1038 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernard, R., Ryan, G.: Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Approaches. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsieh, H.F., Shannon, S.: Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9), 1277–1288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gibson, B.: Personal Health Records. In: Nelson, R., Staggers, N. (eds.) Health Informatics: An Interprofessional Approach, pp. 244–257. Elsevier, Louis (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortese, D.: A health care encounter of the 21st century. JAMA 310(18), 1937–1938 (2013)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown, W., Yen, P.Y., Rojas, M., Schnall, R.: Assessment of the Health IT Usability Evaluation Model (Health-ITUEM) for evaluating mobile health (mHealth) technology. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 46(6), 1080–1087 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheehan, B., Lee, Y., Rodriguez, M., Tiase, V., Schnall, R.: A comparison of usability factors of four mobile devices for accessing healthcare information by adolescents. Applied Clinical Informatics 3(4), 356–366 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nancy Staggers
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marge Benham-Hutchins
    • 3
  • Laura Heermann Langford
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.School of NursingUniversity of MarylandUSA
  2. 2.University of UtahUSA
  3. 3.Texas Woman’s UniversityUSA
  4. 4.Intermountain HealthcareUSA

Personalised recommendations