4.4 Article

Development and evaluation of an electronic hospital referral system: a human factors approach

Journal

ERGONOMICS
Volume 63, Issue 6, Pages 710-723

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00140139.2020.1748232

Keywords

Hospital referral; human factors; ergonomics; quality improvement; health information technology

Funding

  1. Oxford Univeristy Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Coordinating care across hospitals has been identified as a patient safety risk as referrals are often paper-based and poorly documented. Electronic referral systems have the potential to improve the situation but can fail to gain uptake. We applied a human factors/ergonomics (HFE) approach to place analysis of local workflow and user engagement central to the development of a new regional electronic referral system. The intervention was evaluated with a before-and-after study. Referral quality improved, referrals containing sufficient clinical information for continuation of care increased from 36.9% to 83.5% and completeness of referral information significantly improved. There was a 35.7% reduction in the number of calls to the on-call specialist, and the mean period between admission and surgery for expedited transfers was reduced. Applying HFE informed design with use-based evidence; the system maintains sustained uptake three years after implementation. Reliable recording of information translates to better patient safety during inter-hospital transitions. Practitioners summary: This study developed, implemented and evaluated a clinical referral system using a human factors approach. Process analysis and usability studies were used to inform the application requirements and design. Region-wide implementation in hospitals resulted in the improved quality and completeness of clinical referral information and efficiencies in the referral process.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available