Dataset Information

Measuring Collaboration Through Concurrent Electronic Health Record Usage: Network Analysis Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Collaboration is vital within health care institutions, and it allows for the effective use of collective health care worker (HCW) expertise. Human-computer interactions involving electronic health records (EHRs) have become pervasive and act as an avenue for quantifying these collaborations using statistical and network analysis methods.

Objective

We aimed to measure HCW collaboration and its characteristics by analyzing concurrent EHR usage.

Methods

By extracting concurrent EHR usage events from audit log data, we defined concurrent sessions. For each HCW, we established a metric called concurrent intensity, which was the proportion of EHR activities in concurrent sessions over all EHR activities. Statistical models were used to test the differences in the concurrent intensity between HCWs. For each patient visit, starting from admission to discharge, we measured concurrent EHR usage across all HCWs, which we called temporal patterns. Again, we applied statistical models to test the differences in temporal patterns of the admission, discharge, and intermediate days of hospital stay between weekdays and weekends. Network analysis was leveraged to measure collaborative relationships among HCWs. We surveyed experts to determine if they could distinguish collaborative relationships between high and low likelihood categories derived from concurrent EHR usage. Clustering was used to aggregate concurrent activities to describe concurrent sessions. We gathered 4 months of EHR audit log data from a large academic medical center's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to validate the effectiveness of our framework.

Results

There was a significant difference (P<.001) in the concurrent intensity (proportion of concurrent activities: ranging from mean 0.07, 95% CI 0.06-0.08, to mean 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54; proportion of time spent on concurrent activities: ranging from mean 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.44, to mean 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.00) between the top 13 HCW specialties who had the largest amount of time spent in EHRs. Temporal patterns between weekday and weekend periods were significantly different on admission (number of concurrent intervals per hour: 11.60 vs 0.54; P<.001) and discharge days (4.72 vs 1.54; P<.001), but not during intermediate days of hospital stay. Neonatal nurses, fellows, frontline providers, neonatologists, consultants, respiratory therapists, and ancillary and support staff had collaborative relationships. NICU professionals could distinguish high likelihood collaborative relationships from low ones at significant rates (3.54, 95% CI 3.31-4.37 vs 2.64, 95% CI 2.46-3.29; P<.001). We identified 50 clusters of concurrent activities. Over 87% of concurrent sessions could be described by a single cluster, with the remaining 13% of sessions comprising multiple clusters.

Conclusions

Leveraging concurrent EHR usage workflow through audit logs to analyze HCW collaboration may improve our understanding of collaborative patient care. HCW collaboration using EHRs could potentially influence the quality of patient care, discharge timeliness, and clinician workload, stress, or burnout.

SUBMITTER: Li P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8449299 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo address the obesity epidemic, there is a need for novel paradigms, including those that address the timing of eating and sleep in relation to circadian rhythms. Electronic health records (EHRs) are an efficient way to identify potentially eligible participants for health research studies. Mobile health (mHealth) apps offer available and convenient data collection of health behaviors, such as timing of eating and sleep.ObjectiveThe aim of this descriptive analysis was to report on recruitment, retention, and app use from a 6-month cohort study using a mobile app called Daily24.MethodsUsing an EHR query, adult patients from three health care systems in the PaTH clinical research network were identified as potentially eligible, invited electronically to participate, and instructed to download and use the Daily24 mobile app, which focuses on eating and sleep timing. Online surveys were completed at baseline and 4 months. We described app use and identified predictors of app use, defined as 1 or more days of use, versus nonuse and usage categories (ie, immediate, consistent, and sustained) using multivariate regression analyses.ResultsOf 70,661 patients who were sent research invitations, 1021 (1.44%) completed electronic consent forms and online baseline surveys; 4 withdrew, leaving a total of 1017 participants in the analytic sample. A total of 53.79% (n=547) of the participants were app users and, of those, 75.3% (n=412), 50.1% (n=274), and 25.4% (n=139) were immediate, consistent, and sustained users, respectively. Median app use was 28 (IQR 7-75) days over 6 months. Younger age, White race, higher educational level, higher income, having no children younger than 18 years, and having used 1 to 5 health apps significantly predicted app use (vs nonuse) in adjusted models. Older age and lower BMI predicted early, consistent, and sustained use. About half (532/1017, 52.31%) of the participants completed the 4-month online surveys. A total of 33.5% (183/547), 29.3% (157/536), and 27.1% (143/527) of app users were still using the app for at least 2 days per month during months 4, 5, and 6 of the study, respectively.ConclusionsEHR recruitment offers an efficient (ie, high reach, low touch, and minimal participant burden) approach to recruiting participants from health care settings into mHealth research. Efforts to recruit and retain less engaged subgroups are needed to collect more generalizable data. Additionally, future app iterations should include more evidence-based features to increase participant use.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) system users devise workarounds to cope with mismatches between workflows designed in the EHR and preferred workflows in practice. Although workarounds appear beneficial at first sight, they frequently jeopardize patient safety, the quality of care, and the efficiency of care.ObjectiveThis review aims to aid in identifying, analyzing, and resolving EHR workarounds; the Sociotechnical EHR Workaround Analysis (SEWA) framework was published in 2019. Although the framework was based on a large case study, the framework still required theoretical validation, refinement, and enrichment.MethodsA scoping literature review was performed on studies related to EHR workarounds published between 2010 and 2021 in the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, or IEEE databases. A total of 737 studies were retrieved, of which 62 (8.4%) were included in the final analysis. Using an analytic framework, the included studies were investigated to uncover the rationales that EHR users have for workarounds, attributes characterizing workarounds, possible scopes, and types of perceived impacts of workarounds.ResultsThe SEWA framework was theoretically validated and extended based on the scoping review. Extensive support for the pre-existing rationales, attributes, possible scopes, and types of impact was found in the included studies. Moreover, 7 new rationales, 4 new attributes, and 3 new types of impact were incorporated. Similarly, the descriptions of multiple pre-existing rationales for workarounds were refined to describe each rationale more accurately.ConclusionsSEWA is now grounded in the existing body of peer-reviewed empirical evidence on EHR workarounds and, as such, provides a theoretically validated and more complete synthesis of EHR workaround rationales, attributes, possible scopes, and types of impact. The revised SEWA framework can aid researchers and practitioners in a wider range of health care settings to identify, analyze, and resolve workarounds. This will improve user-centered EHR design and redesign, ultimately leading to improved patient safety, quality of care, and efficiency of care.

Project description:Interdisciplinary research collaboration is needed to perform transformative science and accelerate innovation. The Science of Team Science strives to investigate, evaluate, and foster team science, including institutional policies that may promote or hinder collaborative interdisciplinary research and the resources and infrastructure needed to promote team science within and across institutions. Social network analysis (SNA) has emerged as a useful method to measure interdisciplinary science through the evaluation of several types of collaboration networks, including co-authorship networks. Likewise, research administrators are responsible for conducting rigorous evaluation of policies and initiatives. Within this paper, we present a case study using SNA to evaluate inter-programmatic collaboration (evidenced by co-authoring scientific papers) from 2007-2014 among scientists who are members of four formal research programs at an NCI-designated Cancer Center, the Markey Cancer Center (MCC) at the University of Kentucky. We evaluate change in network descriptives over time and implement separable temporal exponential-family random graph models (STERGMs) to estimate the effect of author and network variables on the tendency to form a co-authorship tie. We measure the diversity of the articles published over time (Blau's Index) to understand whether the changes in the co-authorship network are reflected in the diversity of articles published by research members. Over the 8-year period, we found increased inter-programmatic collaboration among research members as evidenced by co-authorship of published scientific papers. Over time, MCC Members collaborated more with others outside of their research program and outside their initial dense co-authorship groups, however tie formation continues to be driven by co-authoring with individuals of the same research program and academic department. Papers increased in diversity over time on all measures with the exception of author gender. This inter-programmatic research was fostered by policy changes in cancer center administration encouraging interdisciplinary research through both informal (e.g., annual retreats, seminar series) and formal (e.g., requiring investigators from more than two research programs on applications for pilot funding) means. Within this cancer center, interdisciplinary co-authorship increased over time as policies encouraging this collaboration were implemented. Yet, there is room for improvement in creating more interdisciplinary and diverse ties between research program members.