Using Critical Incidents in Workshops to Inform eHealth Design

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10513)


Demands for technological solutions to address the variety of problems in healthcare have increased. The design of eHealth is challenging due to e.g. the complexity of the domain and the multitude of stakeholders involved. We describe a workshop method based on Critical Incidents that can be used to reflect on, and critically analyze, different experiences and practices in healthcare. We propose the workshop format, which was used during a conference and found very helpful by the participants to identify possible implications for eHealth design, that can be applied in future projects. This new format shows promise to evaluate eHealth designs, to learn from patients’ real stories and case studies through retrospective meta-analyses, and to inform design through joint reflection of understandings about users’ needs and issues for designers.


Method Workshop format Design Development eHealth Critical incidents Stakeholders Reflective practice Evaluation 



The authors would like to thank the other people involved in the workshop: Åsa Cajander, Koen van Turnhout.


  1. 1.
    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. Inf. Assoc. 11(2), 104–112 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Axelsson, K., Melin, U., Lindgren, I.: Exploring the importance of citizen participation and involvement in e-government projects: practice, incentives, and organization. Transforming Gov. People Process Policy 4(4), 299321 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cajander, A., Grünloh, C., Lind, T., Scandurra, I.: Designing eHealth services for patients and relatives: critical incidents and lessons to learn. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, NordiCHI 2016, p. 130. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eysenbach, G.: What is ehealth? J. Med. Internet Res. 3(2), E20 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Flanagan, J.C.: The critical incident technique. Psychol. Bull. 51(4), 327–359 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fook, J., Gardner, F.: Practising Critical Reflection: A Resource Handbook. McGraw-Hill Education (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grönvall, E., Kyng, M.: On participatory design of home-based healthcare. Cogn. Technol. Work 15(4), 389–401 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grünloh, C., Cajander, Å., Myreteg, G.: “The Record is Our Work Tool!” Physicians’ framing of a patient portal in Sweden. J. Med. Internet Res. 18(6), e167 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hesse, B.W., Shneiderman, B.: eHealth research from the users perspective. Am. J. Prev. Med. 32(5), 97–103 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kane, B., Toussaint, P.J., Luz, S.: Shared decision making needs a communication record. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Support for Cooperative Work (CSCW), pp. 79–90. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kierkegaard, P.: eHealth in Denmark: A case study. J. Med. Syst. 37(6), 1–10 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee, E.: Identifying key components of services in healthcare in the context of out-patient in Norway. In: HEALTHINF 2017 - Proceedings of the International Conference on Health Informatics (2017)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Limburg, M., van Gemert-Pijnen, J.E., Nijland, N., Ossebaard, H.C., Hendrix, R.M., Seydel, E.R.: Why business modeling is crucial in the development of ehealth technologies. J. Med. Internet Res. 13(4), e124 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lister, P.G., Crisp, B.R.: Critical incident analyses: A practice learning tool for students and practitioners. Practice 19(1), 47–60 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Martin, J.L., Murphy, E., Crowe, J.A., Norris, B.J.: Capturing user requirements in medical device development: the role of ergonomics. Physiol. Measur. 27(8), R49 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nemeth, C.P.: Human Factors Methods for Design: Making Systems Human-Centered. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    NordiCHI 2016 Program Committee: Call for Workshop Proposals (2016)., archived by WebCite at
  18. 18.
    Pagliari, C.: Design and evaluation in eHealth: Challenges and implications for an interdisciplinary field. J. Med. Internet Res. 9(2), e15 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rexhepi, H., Åhlfeldt, R.M., Cajander, Å., Huvila, I.: Cancer patients’ attitudes and experiences of online access to their electronic medical records: A qualitative study. Health Inf. J., 1–10 (2016). doi: 10.1177/1460458216658778
  20. 20.
    Scandurra, I., Holgersson, J., Lind, T., Myreteg, G.: Development of patient access to electronic health records as a step towards ubiquitous public ehealth. Eur. J. ePractice 20, 21–36 (2013)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schön, D.A.: The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books, Inc., New York (1983)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sittig, D.F., Classen, D.C.: Safe electronic health record use requires a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework. JAMA 303(5), 450451 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sjölinder, M., Scandurra, I.: Effects of using care professionals in the development of social technology for elderly. In: Zhou, J., Salvendy, G. (eds.) DUXU 2015. LNCS, vol. 9194, pp. 181–192. Springer, Cham (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20913-5_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Terry, N.P.: Protecting patient privacy in the age of big data. UMKC Law Rev. 81, 385 (2012)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Webb, R., Currie, M., Morgan, C., Williamson, J., Mackay, P., Russell, W., Runciman, W.: The Australian incident monitoring study: An analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth. Intensive Care 21, 520–528 (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  2. 2.TH KölnGummersbachGermany
  3. 3.FH OberösterreichWelsAustria
  4. 4.TU WienViennaAustria
  5. 5.Karlstad University Business SchoolKarlstadSweden
  6. 6.SINTEF ICTOsloNorway
  7. 7.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  8. 8.University of SkövdeSkövdeSweden
  9. 9.Örebro UniversityÖrebroSweden

Personalised recommendations