Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 23:10:e39051.
doi: 10.2196/39051.

The Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of a Web-Based Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration Platform in the Hospital Setting: Interview Study With Health Care Providers

Jason Xin Nie  1 , Christine Heidebrecht  1 , Andrea Zettler  1 , Jacklyn Pearce  2 , Rafael Cunha  1 , Sherman Quan  3 , Elizabeth Mansfield  1 , Terence Tang  1   4
Affiliations

The Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of a Web-Based Interprofessional Communication and Collaboration Platform in the Hospital Setting: Interview Study With Health Care Providers

Jason Xin Nie et al. JMIR Hum Factors. .

Abstract

Background: Hospitalized patients with complex care needs require an interprofessional team of health professionals working together to support their care in hospitals and during discharge planning. However, interprofessional communication and collaboration in inpatient settings are often fragmented and inefficient, leading to poor patient outcomes and provider frustration. Health information technology can potentially help improve team communication and collaboration; however, to date, evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. There are also concerns that current implementations might further fragment communication and increase the clinician burden without proven benefits.

Objective: In this study, we aimed to generate transferrable lessons for future designers of health information technology tools that facilitate team communication and collaboration.

Methods: A secondary analysis of the qualitative component of the mixed methods evaluation was performed. The electronic communication and collaboration platform was implemented in 2 general internal medicine wards in a large community teaching hospital in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. Fifteen inpatient clinicians in those wards, including nurses, physicians, and allied health care providers, were recruited to participate in semistructured interviews about their experience with a co-designed electronic communication and collaboration tool. Data were analyzed using the Technology Acceptance Model, and themes related to the constructs of perceived ease of use (PEOU) and perceived usefulness (PU) were identified.

Results: A secondary analysis guided by the Technology Acceptance Model highlighted important points. Intuitive design precluded training as a barrier to use, but lack of training may hinder participants' PEOU if features designed for efficiency are not discovered by users. Organized information was found to be useful for creating a comprehensive clinical picture of each patient and facilitating improved handovers. However, information needs to be both comprehensive and succinct, and information overload may negatively impact PEOU. The mixed paper and electronic practice environment also negatively impacted PEOU owing to unavoidable double documentation and the need for printing. Participants perceived the tool to be useful as it improved efficiency in information retrieval and documentation, improved the handover process, afforded another mode of communication when face-to-face communication was impractical, and improved shared awareness. The PU of this tool depends on its optimal use by all team members.

Conclusions: Electronic tools can support communication and collaboration among interprofessional teams caring for patients with complex needs. There are transferable lessons learned that can improve the PU and PEOU of future systems.

Keywords: care; clinician; collaboration; communication; communication and collaboration; complex; design; education; health information; health information technology; hospital; lesson; members; professional; qualitative method; support; team; teamwork; technology; technology acceptance model.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: The electronic tool was developed at Trillium Health Partners (a publicly funded health care organization), and all authors were staff at the organization during the study period.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Care Connector modules and functionality. CC: Care Connector.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Hierarchy of themes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Schaink AK, Kuluski K, Lyons RF, Fortin M, Jadad AR, Upshur R, Wodchis WP. A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: offering a unifying framework. J Comorb. 2012 Oct 10;2:1–9. doi: 10.15256/joc.2012.2.15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.15256/joc.2012.2.15?url_ver=Z39.88-2... - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ong MS, Coiera E. A systematic review of failures in handoff communication during intrahospital transfers. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011 Jun;37(6):274–84. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(11)37035-3.S1553-7250(11)37035-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dayton E, Henriksen K. Communication failure: basic components, contributing factors, and the call for structure. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2007 Jan;33(1):34–47. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(07)33005-5.S1553-7250(07)33005-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee A, Mills PD, Neily J, Hemphill RR. Root cause analysis of serious adverse events among older patients in the Veterans Health Administration. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2014 Jun;40(6):253–62. doi: 10.1016/s1553-7250(14)40034-5.S1553-7250(14)40034-5 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM. Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2004 Feb;79(2):186–94. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200402000-00019. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources