Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28166883›Full record

ArticleApplied ergonomics2017

SEIPS-based process modeling in primary care.

Abigail R Wooldridge, Pascale Carayon, Ann Schoofs Hundt, Peter L T Hoonakker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied ergonomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Implementing strategies to prevent infections in acute-care settings.Infection control and hospital epidemiology · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Abigail R WooldridgeCenter for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States. Electronic address: arwooldridge@wisc.edu.
Pascale CarayonCenter for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Industrial & Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Ann Schoofs HundtCenter for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Peter L T HoonakkerCenter for Quality and Productivity Improvement, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.

Funding

Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Process mapping, often used as part of the human factors and systems engineering approach to improve care delivery and outcomes, should be expanded to represent the complex, interconnected sociotechnical aspects of health care. Here, we propose a new sociotechnical process modeling method to describe and evaluate processes, using the SEIPS model as the conceptual framework. The method produces a process map and supplementary table, which identify work system barriers and facilitators. In this paper, we present a case study applying this method to three primary care processes. We used purposeful sampling to select staff (care managers, providers, nurses, administrators and patient access representatives) from two clinics to observe and interview. We show the proposed method can be used to understand and analyze healthcare processes systematically and identify specific areas of improvement. Future work is needed to assess usability and usefulness of the SEIPS-based process modeling method and further refine it.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalProcess Assessment, Health CareAppointments and SchedulesElectronic Health RecordsErgonomicsHealth Facility EnvironmentHumansLeadershipPrimary Health CareSystems AnalysisWorkflowPrimary careProcess mappingSociotechnical systems

Identifiers

PMID28166883
PMCPMC5308799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.