The Karma system is currently undergoing maintenance (Monday, January 29, 2018).
The maintenance period has been extended to 8PM EST.

Karma Credits will not be available for redeeming during maintenance.
Advertisement

Citing this Article

Right click to copy or hit: ctrl+c (cmd+c on mac)

Published on 28.07.16 in Vol 3, No 2 (2016): Jul-Dec

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

    Original Paper

    An Evaluation of Understandability of Patient Journey Models in Mental Health

    University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Faculty of Business and Information Technology, Oshawa, ON, Canada

    *all authors contributed equally

    Corresponding Author:

    Jennifer Percival, BMath, PhD

    University of Ontario Institute of Technology

    Faculty of Business and Information Technology

    2000 Simcoe Street North

    Oshawa, ON, L1H 7K4

    Canada

    Phone: 1 905 721 8668 ext 2833

    Fax:1 905 721 3178

    Email:


    ABSTRACT

    Background: There is a significant trend toward implementing health information technology to reduce administrative costs and improve patient care. Unfortunately, little awareness exists of the challenges of integrating information systems with existing clinical practice. The systematic integration of clinical processes with information system and health information technology can benefit the patients, staff, and the delivery of care.

    Objectives: This paper presents a comparison of the degree of understandability of patient journey models. In particular, the authors demonstrate the value of a relatively new patient journey modeling technique called the Patient Journey Modeling Architecture (PaJMa) when compared with traditional manufacturing based process modeling tools. The paper also presents results from a small pilot case study that compared the usability of 5 modeling approaches in a mental health care environment.

    Method: Five business process modeling techniques were used to represent a selected patient journey. A mix of both qualitative and quantitative methods was used to evaluate these models. Techniques included a focus group and survey to measure usability of the various models.

    Results: The preliminary evaluation of the usability of the 5 modeling techniques has shown increased staff understanding of the representation of their processes and activities when presented with the models. Improved individual role identification throughout the models was also observed. The extended version of the PaJMa methodology provided the most clarity of information flows for clinicians.

    Conclusions: The extended version of PaJMa provided a significant improvement in the ease of interpretation for clinicians and increased the engagement with the modeling process. The use of color and its effectiveness in distinguishing the representation of roles was a key feature of the framework not present in other modeling approaches. Future research should focus on extending the pilot case study to a more diversified group of clinicians and health care support workers.

    JMIR Hum Factors 2016;3(2):e20

    doi:10.2196/humanfactors.5640

    KEYWORDS



    Introduction

    Health Information Technology Prospects

    Health information technology (HIT) is expected to improve patient care through increased accessibility to high-quality information, reduction in documentation efforts, and general overall time savings for clinicians [1]. For these reasons, there have been numerous initiatives to spur investment in HIT including computerized order entry systems, electronic medical records (EMRs), and more complex clinical decision support systems [2-4]. Governments, hospitals, clinics, and individual physicians have been investing millions of dollars into HIT. This is a large investment for both the government and physicians, especially given the lack of confidence that the implementation of EMR will result in a positive return expressed by many physicians [2]. Various studies [5-9] have proven that the advances in health care, especially HIT, are not being incorporated by practitioners into clinical best practices. Recent studies have also focused on identifying the unintended consequences of HIT implementations [10-17], and in particular, the importance of the effects of organizational constraints on HIT remains an understudied domain [18]. The implementations of HIT have been predicated not only by monetary and fiscal constraints but also by other organizational factors as well such as access to innovative technologies, the applicability of the HIT to clinical practice, and the attitudes of the clinicians themselves [19,20].

    Although technical barriers and system design flaws do exist, these are too often the source for blame when HIT implementation failures or undesirable consequences arise [21,22]. Many of the undesirable consequences are a result of human and sociotechnical interactions (the interactions between new HIT and the organization’s culture), including in particular their workflows, team dynamics, communications structures, and existing information systems [17,23]. Due to the increased demand for demonstrating meaningful use and integration of HIT into clinical practice, changing the current methods for evaluating the integrated potential of HIT is critical for all health care organizations [24,25]. Kaplan [26] found that one of the primary barriers in the managing of HIT design and implementation projects was communication and understanding of the workflow-related issues stemming from the broad spectrum of stakeholders involved in the projects: “Participants described the difficulty in fully understanding workflow, as evidenced by the workflow changes resulting in endless workarounds.” We propose the use of patient journey models to provide a clear visual representation of the workflows, technology, and communication interactions. Using visual models to depict health care situations enables all stakeholders to audit current practices and subsequently strategically plan process improvement initiatives focused on patient safety, quality of care, and efficiency [27].

    Many studies on HIT evaluation methods support the need for improved modeling techniques to meet the specific complexities and social contexts of health care [28,29]. The modeling of information flows and integration into practice in HIT evaluation studies continues to be an issue requiring additional research. Process modeling has traditionally been used to improve information flows within organizations [27,30]. These techniques use basic flow charts [31], lean process mapping, or other methods derived from the manufacturing sector [9,32-34]. Recently, work has focused on modeling processes through the lens of the patient using various patient journey modeling (PJM) techniques [27,35]. These models can help both administrators and clinicians understand potential consequences of changes in processes and information flows due to HIT implementations. Using these models as a component of existing HIT evaluation methods, it will be possible to determine a set of unique clinical care processes based on the organization’s culture that integrate EMR systems for the benefit of improved patient care.

    Although various modeling techniques are being used in support of quality improvement and technology adoption, there remains an issue of whether those affected by the organizational change are able to assess the potential impact based on how the information is represented. In our earlier research [36], we have demonstrated the difference when 2 modeling techniques are used to represent the same patient journey from a functional matrix perspective. This paper presents a comparison of 5 process modeling techniques with a focus on supporting HIT integration into clinical practice. The results of an initial pilot study of user perceptions of the understandability of the representation of a patient journey model within which they actively participate across 5 process mapping techniques is also presented to provide support for the theoretical constructs. This research was part of a larger EMR technology adoption change management initiative at Providence Mental Health Care, Kingston, Ontario.

    Background

    Given the current era of technology development, there are a number of research findings that support the utilization of advancing HIT in clinical practice [2,9,37]. Although the benefits of using HIT in the health care setting have been proven to improve patient care, “adapting new information systems to health care has proven difficult, and rates of use have been limited” [38]. There are many HIT resources available, such as EMR, computerized physician order entry systems, and clinical decision support systems that enable improved patient care through timely delivery of secured patient information. However, a number of studies have identified unintended consequence to workflows as a major issue in HIT implementations [10-13,15,16]. We refer the reader to Greenhalgh’s systematic review summarizing the tensions and paradoxes in EMR research results for a synopsis of this work [39].

    A number of studies have examined nurses’ perceptions of EMR, and more generally HIT, to understand the barriers to technology integration in health care [40-43]. These studies have found that although nurses are open to the possible benefits of EMR and HIT, they continue to have concerns about how these technologies will integrate into bedside care. Results from studies on physicians using EMR have supported similar concerns [11,39,44,45]. Many technology adoption–led change management initiatives failed to enable people in various health care roles to fully understand their future work practice behaviors. In their systematic review of HIT implementations, Cresswell and Sheikh [18] found that the implementation of HIT has been noted to have significant challenges in integrating a range of interrelated technical, social, and organizational factors necessary to fully integrate the technology with clinical practice. These challenges present opportunities for the utilization of a process modeling architecture that integrates technical, social, and organizational factors into the process modeling to convey information effectively and enabling both HIT designers and clinicians to clearly understand the proposed future work practices.

    To improve patient safety and quality under increasing budget constraints, researchers in health management began to modify business process modeling techniques from traditional manufacturing applications [9,32]. Recently, a number of studies have looked at lean approaches for process re-engineering and cost reductions [46-50]. A significant amount of research has focused on a patient-focused model to analyze problems occurring in health care [6,7,51]. Identification of such “system of care” improvements is the primary objective of PJM initiatives through a patient-centric activity that details a patient’s progress through a health care system for a given service [52]. PJM aims to improve patient safety and overall health care quality by highlighting patient information flow issues and thereby aiding in the reduction of variability in the care process. The results of the analysis, combined with the provider goals, are used to derive target processes and justify change management proposals [53,54]. Creating clinical care pathway models that focus on the patient’s perspective aid in the identification of potential unintended consequences of HIT implementations, as well as potential innovations related to the use of HIT at all levels of the organization. Clearly, presented models aid in identifying gaps or inefficiencies in information flow, workflows that integrate EMR, and providing visual representations of clinical practice for improved consistency in quality of care. Improving the understanding of the sociotechnical issues will facilitate communication between stakeholders. It will also increase the level of understanding of the potential consequences to workflow and communication patterns due to the HIT implementation [12,13]. Unfortunately, gaining this insight continues to become more challenging as the technological and institutional changes in health care increase the complexity of the workflows and related social interactions. These social interactions continue to be difficult to integrate within many modeling techniques [43].

    Modeling of the multiple dimensions that contribute to the entire journey experienced by a patient within and across hospitals, clinics, and community health organization(s) must include the inherent complexity of their inter-relationship that influence the structure, processes, and outcomes of the service system [55,56]. Therefore, from a high-level perspective, the process of PJM is to optimize improvement of services and innovation across structural changes, process improvements, and outcome improvements simultaneously. At a more specific level, PJM provides direct opportunities for improvements and process innovation in areas such as improved information flows among all members of the health care team including the patient and their family, streamlined handovers between and across health care organizations, elimination of duplicated work and data collection, and increased compliance to organizational policies. The use of PJM also increases the level of engagement and empowerment of employees and patients through their involvement in the modeling process. The results of the analysis of the patient journey models, combined with the provider goals, are used to derive future desired processes and justify change management proposals [55,56]. By analyzing the models (both those representing the current state and those predicting the future, post-HIT implementation state), designers of HIT systems as well as practitioners can better understand the sociotechnical limitations of the organization. This is important, as it will help identify potential consequences to the clinical and administrative processes mediated by the HIT implementation. Given the complexity of the collaborative work and multiple information flows among people, information systems, documents, and organizational processes [57,58], these models provide a comprehensive view of how changes in HIT will affect existing paradigms. However, if the PJM created does not correctly reflect the current state and this is not detected by staff due to issues of model understandability, then those unrepresented activities are not included within the quality improvement or technology adoption initiative. This has great potential to lead to issues with future state implementation.

    There are also a number of limitations to existing patient journey and process modeling techniques [59]. Existing models have limitations on the details that can be represented in them. There is also concern about the usability of developed models [60]. Most modeling methodologies have specific languages developed from information systems and have not been developed with novice modelers or involvement of the general public in mind [61]. The modeling methodologies each have a unique notation, which does not leverage aspects of perceptual discriminability and semantic transparency [62]. These languages are difficult for most people in an organization to understand and therefore limit the number of employees who can easily be engaged in the modeling process as well as the clarity of the developed models. To develop and easily maintain process models, it is important to engage employees at all levels, as this will significantly increase the organization’s ability to identify possible innovation opportunities and improve the efficient and effectiveness of patient care.

    Recently, there has been a growing interest in using visual process models for communication and as a tool to support change management initiatives in organizations [63]. Process models are also being considered for use in staff training, customer or patient information, or as teaching tools in higher education [64]. These applications require a model that is intuitive, clear, and easily understood. The models must also be comprehensive to ensure a high degree of knowledge transfer. To achieve these outcomes, the process modeling notation must exhibit a high degree of cognitive effectiveness [62]. It is the involvement of the stakeholders that supports change management and the development of lasting process innovations as they become aware of inefficiencies through the visual analysis of the process models as they are developed and refined [65].

    The health care environment is also quite different from manufacturing or even many other services. In particular, unlike most lean initiatives where duplication should always be eliminated, in health care, some duplication is essential for patient safety and specified in clinical protocols (eg, medication reconciliation at all handovers) [65]. Health care also tends to have a greater number of decision points due to the complexity of comorbidities. These result in data being recombined in a number of ways to support decision making throughout the patient journey. The decision-making process typically integrates a coordinated team approach making many process modeling approaches unable to adequately capture the team dynamics and role differentiation [66]. Health care also has a high level of required documentation. This increases the need to represent in the process models how information is recorded and the standardization of this data collection [67]. Finally, it is critical that health care process models include policies and guidelines that support each process step. Capturing these data sources is critical for identifying potential process improvements and areas where HIT could be leveraged for compliance with best practice approaches [65].

    The Patient Journey Modeling Architecture (PaJMa) is a patient journey modeling methodology that enables a visual representation of the interaction of processes, technologies, and people used to support a patient’s experience in the health care system [9,36]. This modeling technique represents the following layers: staff roles, processes, information creation/movement, HIT, IT infrastructure, patient needs/practice guidelines/policies, and metrics [51] (refer to Figure 1 for an example). This ensures the visual integration of all the major elements in Sittig and Singh’s [68] sociotechnical model for studying HIT in complex health care environments. The updated architecture also uses color coding to aid in the identification of which role is the primary user of the information source and those that are also subusers of information recorded in the information source. Color is a powerful visualization means allowing for the identification of different or similar roles and processes [69]. The use of color supports redundant coding and has been shown to reduce noise and protect the transfer of information from interpretation errors [62]. This color coding helps in the requirements gathering process by clearly identifying the roles that require access to the various set of information and at what stage in the patient journey this information is recorded, updated, or simply accessed to support decision making. Similarly, to aid in the identification of the number and types of technology resources (both input and output devices) that are required, as well as infrastructure needs, these too are color coded to indicate the individuals who use the devices. The networks that are used, whether internal to the hospital, links to external care providers, or patient homes are also color coded to aid in the specification of any security and/or infrastructure needs that would have to be considered if the process were to be altered. This is particularly important when considering many of the new eHealth initiatives to support home-based care or self-monitoring of chronic conditions.

    The use of the PaJMa approach aids in visually depicting the current care processes within a particular health care unit or facility as well as the potential future state after HIT implementations. PaJMa is an effective method for pointing out inefficiencies and allowing health care professionals to work with and alter the model to benefit their practices [36]. The PaJMa model is the only model that integrates IT into the representation while enabling the explicit representation of the guidelines and/or protocols that relate to tasks within the process model and the only approach that supports patient needs.

    Figure 1. PaJMa Model of Forensic Unit Discharge Process.
    View this figure

    Methods

    Comparing the PJM Methods

    In Table 1, we present a comparison of key aspects of process definition required for PJM. This comparison is not meant to provide a complete functional comparison from a business process perspective, but rather to highlight some key requirements within the domain of health care.

    Table 1. Comparison of patient journey modeling techniques.
    View this table

    The comparison is grouped based on process definition, roles, information, guidelines and protocols, patient needs, and metrics. This comparison supports the recent trend for the use of Lean Value Stream Mapping [70,71] as it shows the functional quality of the approach. However, the PaJMa model is the only model that enables the explicit representation of the guidelines and/or protocols that relate to tasks within the process model and the only approach that supports patient needs [72]. It is also the only model that integrates the technical aspects of the information systems infrastructure along with the data requirements.

    Understanding the benefits that EMR can bring to the patient, health care team, and to the delivery of care is an important part of systems implementation planning. The use of patient journey models has been shown to be very beneficial in the systems requirement gathering process as it combines the perspectives and needs of all members of the health care team into a cohesive vision [36]. These diagrams are also extremely valuable to the systems development team for identifying the upgrade possibilities with the highest impact on patient care, in supporting change management initiatives, and improving user support for the EMR system [73]. Once the benefits of EMR implementation have been analyzed, the developers and health care providers must then integrate the use of EMR to clinical practice and minimize the potential for unintended consequences.

    Case Study

    To explore and validate the understandability of the PJM frameworks, we used a qualitative/quantitative mixed methods approach with 17 health care practitioners from the Forensics Ward and Adult Rehabilitation Ward at Providence Mental Health Care in Kingston, Ontario. The participants consisted of the entire clinical team working on the electronic patient record initiative for the design of the organization’s EMR system. The study was approved by the University of Ontario Institute of Technology research ethics board and was run at the host site as the first project under a memorandum of understanding to support the University in its teaching and research with undergraduate and graduate students in health sciences and health informatics. This is a small pilot study to support the conceptual model developed, and all results should be viewed with an understanding of this limitation.

    A brief introduction to process modeling was presented to participants to give them a little background with regard to the purpose of the research and the survey instrument. The survey instrument explores 3 key aspects of the model architectures: (1) personal factors and model factors which affect the reader`s understandability of the model; (2) whether these models are sufficient for clinician understanding; and (3) the comparison between various modalities of models. The survey instrument is available from the authors on request.

    A process used on the participants’ unit was modeled, and models using 5 different modeling techniques were presented; data flow diagram, IDEF-0, traditional flowchart, lean, and PaJMa model. Once all 5 models were presented, the models remained visible to the participants and a survey was then conducted to collect feedback on preferences. These different models were presented to compare and contrast the differing PJM frameworks in terms of ease of understanding the process, ease of identifying their own role within the model, and overall visual aspects of the models. None of the participants had used the PaJMa or other frameworks before in their work processes, although many were familiar with flow charts.

    Figures 1-4 present a matching segment of the larger process used as part of the study due to space restrictions. The standard flow chart example was not included in the paper but is available from the authors on request. Although only showing a segment, it still illustrates the functionality of each modeling technique for the purposes of reporting our research findings. The IDEF-0 (refer to Figure 2) and data flow diagram (refer to Figure 3) are techniques derived from information systems research. These techniques focus on supporting systems development but are not intuitive for novice patient journey modelers. The techniques were found to be difficult for care providers to understand, and they were found to have limited ability to incorporate key elements in understanding the patient journey such as policies, guidelines, and caregiver roles.

    The participants were also asked to explain how the use of color affected their overall ranking on the models. They were then asked to focus on the PaJMa model and were provided with the same model in color and black and white to explore how color affected the perceptions on the usability of this modeling method. Participants were given the opportunity to express their rationale for selection of preferred modeling methods as well as asked to provide specific aspects of the modeling framework that contributed to ease of understanding and improved organization of the data regarding information flow in the patient journey. Figure 3 represents an example of the PaJMa model presented and the same process is mapped as a Lean Value Stream Map in Figure 4.

    Figure 2. IDEF-0 Model of Forensic Unit Discharge Process.
    View this figure
    Figure 3. Data Flow Diagram of Forensic Unit Discharge Process.
    View this figure
    Figure 4. Lean Value Stream Map of Forensic Unit Discharge Process.
    View this figure

    Results

    The results from the survey suggest that the health care professionals understood the PaJMa model more easily than the Lean Value Stream Map that was presented. From the data, 7 (41%) of participants found the PaJMa model to be the most visually pleasing when compared with the other models with a basic flow chart next at 4 (24%) and a Lean Value Stream Map next at only 3 (18%). When we focused the analysis on role identification, information clarity, and general ease of flow progressing through the model, respondents found the PaJMa model to outperform the other options (Figure 5).

    When asked about what would be important factors for using the models, 13 (76%) of participants considered the length of time working on the ward, the amount of experience with models, or both factors together as key characteristics for determining how a staff member may interpret the models being used on the wards. In addition to this, when participants were asked about factors of the model that they noticed contributed to the enhancement of the model’s usability, 13 (76%) of participants mentioned the use of color in their answers. It was found that 14 (82%) of the participants favored the PaJMa model with its use of color compared with the same black and white version of the PaJMa model. Statements made included: “the colour, pictorial diagrams, layers, and explanations linked (shape and color) contributed to the usability of the model. The presentation/explanation on how to read the model and inclusion of staff was great” and “size, color, role representation, and shapes of various items used on the models contribute to the ease of interpretation.” This demonstrates that color is an important, and easily implemented, element that should be leveraged in all modeling methodologies. The results support the conclusion that the PaJMa approach has increased clarity and overall cognitive effectiveness than the other models.

    Figure 5. Comparison of Ease of Use of Patient Journey Models.
    View this figure

    Discussion

    Principal Findings

    Although workflow models must encompass accurate details of the processes it illustrates, it must be able to do so in a way that allows each piece of the puzzle to be distinct and discernible from one another. We found that those who participated in the survey favored the characteristics of the PaJMa model such as color, size, and the structured approach of the layout. The PaJMa model allows for current processes to be laid out as they presently are, and feedback from the stakeholders will be used to update these models to reflect the thoughts of all the stakeholders. While these models provide valuable insight into potential consequences of HIT implementations, these insights are limited by the accuracy of the models. Models that detail the current and future HIT-enabled processes, taking into account the opinions and feedback of a variety of stakeholders, are valuable tools in the design and implementation of HIT systems and eHealth services. The high level of usability and access by front-line practitioners will ensure increased adoption of the model and will support the minimization of errors, ultimately improving the understanding of all stakeholders and improving the quality of patient care.

    The use of the PaJMa framework will enable health care organizations to clearly visualize how EMR, and HIT in general, can be beneficial for themselves and their patients. By developing their own unique sets of models, each organization will gain greater depth of understanding on their sociotechnical constraints including the requirements that their organizational culture and practices have for an EMR implementation. The use of this type of modeling will also support a more effective and easier implementation of HIT, as health care professionals can visualize the benefits and challenges before implementing the new technology. This will allow new practices to be developed and training of all staff to take place before the new system is implemented. The models can also serve as a process measurement tool enabling improved analysis of the benefits obtained once the implementation is complete.

    Conclusions

    This paper has presented preliminary assessment of the understandability of the PaJMa framework to aid in effectively integrating HIT into clinical practice through visualization of current and future patient journeys. The incorporation of EMR into clinical practices is essential to the future of health care. Not only will it increase accessibility to patient information but also will increase patient safety, support patient confidentiality, and decrease time spent reviewing and asking about a patient’s health history thereby improving patient care and the sustainability of the health care system. These models help improve practitioner and HIT designer’s understanding of the network of information flows and cultural relationships that shape the organization’s workflow patterns. Understanding these elements has been linked [20,74] to mitigating unintended consequences of such HIT implementations.

    This research demonstrated increased staff understandability of the representation of their processes and activities within the PaJMa models and higher degrees of engagement in the change process [75]. The results indicated that the modeling approach was valuable to the host organization and was of interest to the consulting company working on the development of the electronic patient record project. The PaJMa methodology is also currently being utilized as part of a HIT capacity audit across Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs). Future research will look into how to adequately transform an organization to use new practice guidelines that integrate HIT and how to leverage patient journey models to support improved EMR design.

    Acknowledgments

    The authors acknowledge funding support for this research from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Canada Research Chair in Health Informatics, Canada Research Chair program. The authors also thank the staff of the Forensics Ward and Adult Rehabilitation Ward at Providence Mental Health Care, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, and specifically Shari Brown, Shannon Frink, Heather Frost, Pamela Kendall, and Mike McCabe from the ePR Project team for their support and collaboration in this research. In addition, thanks to the UOIT health practicum research students Danielle Andrews, Ashley Chambers, and Jordan Whately for their aid with modeling and data collection.

    Conflicts of Interest

    None declared.

    References

    1. Gururajan R, Murugesan S, Soar J. Introducing mobile technologies in support of healthcare. Cutter IT Journal 2005;18(8):12-18 ISSN 1522-7383 [FREE Full text]
    2. Zieger A. FierceHealthIT. 2009 Mar 16. Will HIT stimulus work? Readers are pessimistic   URL: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/it/will-hit-stimulus-work-readers-are-pessimistic [accessed 2016-07-19] [WebCite Cache]
    3. Zieger A. FierceHealthcare. 2009. Wal-Mart will market electronic medical records system   URL: http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/wal-mart-will-market-electronic-medical-records-system [accessed 2016-07-19] [WebCite Cache]
    4. Gagnon M, Desmartis M, Labrecque M, Car J, Pagliari C, Pluye P, et al. Systematic review of factors influencing the adoption of information and communication technologies by healthcare professionals. J Med Syst 2012 Feb;36(1):241-277 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    5. Natsch S, van der Meer JWM. The role of clinical guidelines, policies and stewardship. J Hosp Infect 2003 Mar;53(3):172-176. [Medline]
    6. Shaneyfelt TM, Mayo-Smith MF, Rothwangl J. Are guidelines following guidelines? The methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines in the peer-reviewed medical literature. JAMA 1999 May 26;281(20):1900-1905. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    7. Raine R, Sanderson C, Black N. Developing clinical guidelines: a challenge to current methods. BMJ 2005 Sep 17;331(7517):631-633 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    8. Kilian BJ, Binder LS, Marsden J. The emergency physician and knowledge transfer: continuing medical education, continuing professional development, and self-improvement. Acad Emerg Med 2007 Nov;14(11):1003-1007 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    9. MacDougall C, McGregor C, Percival J. The Fusion of Clinical Guidelines with Technology: Trends & Challenges. Electronic Journal for Health Informatics 2010;5(2):e14 [FREE Full text]
    10. Aarts J, Doorewaard H, Berg M. Understanding implementation: the case of a computerized physician order entry system in a large Dutch university medical center. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004;11(3):207-216 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    11. Aarts J, Ash J, Berg M. Extending the understanding of computerized physician order entry: implications for professional collaboration, workflow and quality of care. Int J Med Inform 2007 Jun;76 Suppl 1:S4-S13. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    12. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra RH, Guappone K, Carpenter JD, Seshadri V. Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry. Int J Med Inform 2007 Jun;76 Suppl 1:S21-S27. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    13. Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006;13(5):547-556 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    14. Ash JS, 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 2004 Apr;11(2):104-112 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    15. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra R, Campbell E, Guappone K. The unintended consequences of computerized provider order entry: findings from a mixed methods exploration. Int J Med Inform 2009 Apr;78 Suppl 1:S69-S76 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    16. Ash JS, Sittig DF, Poon EG, Guappone K, Campbell E, Dykstra RH. The extent and importance of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14(4):415-423 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    17. Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care--an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14(5):542-549 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    18. Cresswell K, Sheikh A. Organizational issues in the implementation and adoption of health information technology innovations: an interpretative review. Int J Med Inform 2013 May;82(5):e73-e86. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    19. Eley R, Soar J, Buikstra E, Fallon T, Hegney D. Attitudes of Australian nurses to information technology in the workplace: a national survey. Comput Inform Nurs 2009;27(2):114-121. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    20. Lorenzi NM, Novak LL, Weiss JB, Gadd CS, Unertl KM. Crossing the implementation chasm: a proposal for bold action. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008;15(3):290-296 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    21. Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;23(2):116-126 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    22. Poon EG, Blumenthal D, Jaggi T, Honour MM, Bates DW, Kaushal R. Overcoming barriers to adopting and implementing computerized physician order entry systems in U.S. hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 2004;23(4):184-190 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    23. Beuscart-Zéphir MC, Borycki E, Carayon P, Jaspers MWM, Pelayo S. Evolution of human factors research and studies of health information technologies: the role of patient safety. Yearb Med Inform 2013;8:67-77. [Medline]
    24. Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013 Jun;20(e1):e9-e13 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    25. Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Ten key considerations for the successful optimization of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016 Apr 23. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    26. Kaplan B, Harris-Salamone KD. Health IT success and failure: recommendations from literature and an AMIA workshop. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009;16(3):291-299 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    27. Trebble TM, Hansi N, Hydes T, Smith MA, Baker M. Process mapping the patient journey: an introduction. BMJ 2010;341. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    28. Reichertz PL. Hospital information systems--past, present, future. Int J Med Inform 2006;75(3-4):282-299. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    29. Kaplan B. Evaluating informatics applications--some alternative approaches: theory, social interactionism, and call for methodological pluralism. Int J Med Inform 2001 Nov;64(1):39-56. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    30. Unertl KM, Weinger MB, Johnson KB, Lorenzi NM. Describing and modeling workflow and information flow in chronic disease care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009;16(6):826-836 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    31. Johnson JK, Farnan JM, Barach P, Hesselink G, Wollersheim H, Pijnenborg L, et al. Searching for the missing pieces between the hospital and primary care: mapping the patient process during care transitions. BMJ Qual Saf 2012 Dec;21 Suppl 1:i97-i105 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    32. Catley C, McGregor C, Percival J, Curry J, James A. Multi-dimensional knowledge translationnabling health informatics capacity audits using patient journey models. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2008 Presented at: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2008; August 20-24, 2008; Vancouver.
    33. Aguilar-Savén RS. Business process modelling: Review and framework. International Journal of Production Economics 2004 Jul;90(2):129-149. [CrossRef]
    34. Green P, Rosemann M. Integrated process modeling: An ontological evaluation. Information Systems 2000 Apr;25(2):73-87. [CrossRef]
    35. Steadman A, McGregor C, Percival J, James A. Advances in Health Informatics Conference 2012. In: Using PaJMa to Enable Comparative Assessment of Healthcare Processes Within Three Canadian Neonatal Intensive Care Units. 2012 Presented at: Advances in Health Informatics Conference 2012; April 25-27, 2012; Toronto   URL: http://www.nihi.ca/nihi%5Cimages%5CSteadman-Paper.pdf
    36. McGregor C, Percival J, Curry J, Foster D, Anstey E, Churchill D. A structured approach to requirements gathering creation using PaJMa models. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society. 2008 Presented at: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society 2008; August 20-24, 2008; Vancouver.
    37. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-530 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    38. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, et al. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med 2006 May 16;144(10):742-752. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    39. Greenhalgh T, Potts HW, Wong G, Bark P, Swinglehurst D. Tensions and paradoxes in electronic patient record research: a systematic literature review using the meta-narrative method. Milbank Q 2009 Dec;87(4):729-788 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    40. Royal College of Nursing. RCN. 2005. The information needs of nurses: Summary report of an RCN survey   URL: https://www2.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/78670/002780.pdf [WebCite Cache]
    41. Webster J, Davis J, Holt V, Stallan G, New K, Yegdich T. Australian nurses' and midwives' knowledge of computers and their attitudes to using them in their practice. J Adv Nurs 2003 Jan;41(2):140-146. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    42. Yu P, Comensoli N. An Exploration of the Barriers to the Adoption of Information Technology in Australian Aged Care Industry. In: Proceedings of Health Information Conference 2004. Brunswick East, Victoria: Health Informatics Society of Australia; 2004 Presented at: Health Information Conference 2004; July 25-27, 2004; Brisbane p. 219-223   URL: http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=886841359971667;res=IELHEA
    43. Kaplan B, Brennan PF, Dowling AF, Friedman CP, Peel V. Toward an informatics research agenda: key people and organizational issues. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001;8(3):235-241 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    44. Ventres W, Kooienga S, Vuckovic N, Marlin R, Nygren P, Stewart V. Physicians, patients, and the electronic health record: an ethnographic analysis. Ann Fam Med 2006;4(2):124-131 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    45. Greatbatch D, Heath C, Campion P, Luff P. How do desk-top computers affect the doctor-patient interaction? Fam Pract 1995 Mar;12(1):32-36. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    46. Moon J, Kim D. Context-Aware Business Process Management for Personalized Healthcare Services. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing [Proceedings]. 2013 Presented at: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Services Computing; June 28 - July 3, 2013; Santa Clara, CA.
    47. Khodambashi S. Business Process Re-engineering Application in Healthcare in a Relation to Health Information Systems. Procedia Technology 2013;9:949-957. [CrossRef]
    48. Becker J, Janiesch C. Restrictions in process design: a case study on workflows in healthcare. In: Proceedings of the 2007 international conference on Business process management. 2007 Presented at: 2007 International Conference on Business process management; September 25-27, 2007; Brisbane p. 323-334.
    49. Laing A. Meeting patient expectations: healthcare professionals and service re-engineering. Health Serv Manage Res 2002 Aug;15(3):165-172. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    50. Moraros J, Lemstra M, Nwankwo C. Lean interventions in healthcare: do they actually work? A systematic literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 2016 Apr;28(2):150-165 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    51. MacDougall C, Percival J, McGregor C. Integrating health information technology into clinical guidelines. In: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009 [Proceedings]. 2009 Presented at: Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, 2009; September 3-6, 2009; Minneapolis, MN.
    52. NHS Modernisation Agency. NHS. 2005. ILG 2.3 Improving flow: Improvement Leaders' Guide: Process and Systems Thinking   URL: http:/​/www.​institute.nhs.uk/​building_capability/​building_improvement_capability/​improvement_leaders'_guides%3A_process_and_systems_thinking.​html [accessed 2016-07-22] [WebCite Cache]
    53. Hammer M, Champy J. Reengineering the corporation: A manifesto for business revolution. Business Horizons 1993 Sep;36(5):90-91. [CrossRef]
    54. Scheer A. ARIS - Business Process Frameworks. Berlin: Springer; 1999.
    55. Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q 2005;83(4):691-729 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    56. Friedman C, Wyatt J. Evaluation methods in biomedical informatics. New York: Springer; 2006.
    57. Berg M. Patient care information systems and health care work: a sociotechnical approach. Int J Med Inform 1999 Aug;55(2):87-101. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    58. Kling R, McKim G, King A. A bit more to it: Scholarly Communication Forums as Socio-Technical Interaction Networks. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci 2002 Jan 01;54(1):47-67. [CrossRef]
    59. Rosemann M. Potential pitfalls of process modeling: part B. Business Process Mgmt Journal 2006 May;12(3):377-384. [CrossRef]
    60. Haux R. Health information systems - past, present, future. Int J Med Inform 2006 Mar;75(3-4):268-281. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    61. Percival J. A visual process model for improved technology-based service design. IJPMB 2016;6(2):170-189. [CrossRef]
    62. Genon N, Heymans P, Amyot D. Analysing the cognitive effectiveness of the BPMN 2.0 visual notation. In: Software Language Engineering. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2011:377-396.
    63. Harmon P, Wolf C. BPTrends. 2011 Dec. Business Process Modeling Survey 2011   URL: http://www.bptrends.com/bpt/wp-content/surveys/Process_Modeling_Survey-Dec_11_FINAL.pdf [accessed 2016-02-02] [WebCite Cache]
    64. Scheuerlein H, Rauchfuss F, Dittmar Y, Molle R, Lehmann T, Pienkos N, et al. New methods for clinical pathways-Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) and Tangible Business Process Modeling (t.BPM). Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012 Jun;397(5):755-761. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    65. McLaughlin N, Rodstein J, Burke MA, Martin NA. Demystifying process mapping: a key step in neurosurgical quality improvement initiatives. Neurosurgery 2014 Aug;75(2):99-109. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    66. Singprasong R, Eldabi T. An integrated methodology for process improvement and delivery system visualization at a multidisciplinary cancer center. J Healthc Qual 2013;35(2):24-32. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    67. Gawande A. The Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right. New York: Metropolitan Books of Henry Holt and Company; 2009.
    68. Sittig DF, Singh H. A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care 2010 Oct;19(Suppl 3):i68-i74 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    69. Lewis M, Young B, Mathiassen L, Rai A, Welke R. Work, Workflow, Information Systems and Enterprise Transformation. Clifton, VA: IOS Press; 2007. Business process innovation based on stakeholder perceptions   URL: http://content.iospress.com/articles/information-knowledge-systems-management/iks00091 [accessed 2016-07-20] [WebCite Cache]
    70. Waring JJ, Bishop S. Lean healthcare: rhetoric, ritual and resistance. Soc Sci Med 2010 Oct;71(7):1332-1340. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    71. Young TP, McClean SI. A critical look at Lean Thinking in healthcare. Qual Saf Health Care 2008 Oct;17(5):382-386. [CrossRef] [Medline]
    72. Percival J, McGregor C. Integrating information systems into patient journey modeling: Improving process improvement supports for electronic health records and e-Health initiatives. Working Paper. Oshawa, ON: University of Ontario Institute of Technology Health Informatics Working Group; 2012.
    73. Percival J, Catley C, McGregor C, James A. A Design for Modelling the Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Patient Journeys in Neonatal Intensive Care Units. In: McClean SI, editor. Intelligent Patient Management (Studies in Computational Intelligence). Berlin: Springer; 2009:147-169.
    74. Novak LL, Anders S, Gadd CS, Lorenzi NM. Mediation of adoption and use: a key strategy for mitigating unintended consequences of health IT implementation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012;19(6):1043-1049 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
    75. McGregor C, Steadman A, Percival J, James A. A Method for Modeling Health Informatics Capacity in Patient Journeys Supported by Interprofessional Teams. In: Proceedings of the 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 2012 Presented at: 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; January 4-7, 2012; Hawaii.


    Abbreviations

    EMR: electronic medical record
    HIT: health information technology
    NICU: Neonatal Intensive Care Unit
    PaJMa: Patient Journey Modeling Architecture


    Edited by G Eysenbach; submitted 11.02.16; peer-reviewed by L Novak, R Vander Stichele; comments to author 06.04.16; revised version received 01.06.16; accepted 04.07.16; published 28.07.16

    ©Jennifer Percival, Carolyn McGregor. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 28.07.2016.

    This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.