4.5 Article

Exploring SEIPS 2.0 as a model for analyzing care transitions across work systems

期刊

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103141

关键词

Care transitions; Work systems; Sociotechnical systems; Older adults; Emergency department

资金

  1. Provost's Multidisciplinary Award, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States
  2. Shapiro Summer Research Program, University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, United States
  3. KL2 grant from the Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR), UW-Madison, Madison, United States, through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), United States [KL2TR002374, 1UL1TR002373]
  4. National Institute on Aging, NIH, United States [K24AG054560]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Care transitions across healthcare settings, specifically between the emergency department (ED) and the home, are pervasive among older adults, and represent persistent healthcare quality and safety challenges. Care transitions cross multiple distinct work systems, representing a conceptual and methodological challenge for the field of Human Factors/Ergonomics - how to analyze a process that occurs across multiple work systems. As an initial step in determining how to study care transitions across work systems, we applied the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model, specifically the concept of configuration, to explore older adults' ED-to-home transitions. Our results suggest that configuration is useful for identifying and modeling work system barriers that interact across systems, but does not explicitly allow for the identification and analysis of the system boundaries that are crossed. To fully capture the complexity associated with care transitions, future iterations of SEIPS should introduce a mechanism to capture specific boundary types, so that system analysis can capture when and which boundaries are crossed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据