ArticleBMC health services research2025
Using human centred design and human factors to support a rapid health information technology patient safety response.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acceptance of Electronic Medical Records Among Practitioner Nurses and Nurse Managers Using the UTAUT Framework in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman centred design (HCD) and human factors (HF) approaches can support the safe design and redesign of Health Information Technologies (HITs). Safety issues associated with HITs can occur due to complex sociotechnical and contextual factors which dynamically impact safety. An effective rapid HIT patient safety response could resolve issues before patient harm occurs.
aimTo describe, evaluate, and generate recommendations for optimising the application of HCD and HF methods by non-HF experts during a rapid statewide HIT patient safety response.
methodsIn response to reported safety issues with a HIT, HCD and HF approaches were used by non-HF experts during site visits to understand the issues, contextual differences between sites and gather preliminary feedback on proposed redesign options to mitigate the issues. This quality improvement study involved two 45-minute focus groups with 7 staff who conducted the site visits to understand what worked well, what did not work well, and any lessons learnt relating to the application of HCD and HF informed data collection approaches during this patient safety response.
resultsOutcomes from the site visits were reported to be variable. However, the overall data collection approach was considered effective in gathering useful information. Participants explained that key outcomes of the approach used included improved understanding of the issues and contributing contextual factors, effective engagement with sites and users, and increased team collaboration and job satisfaction among the data collection team. Participants identified factors that influenced the effectiveness of site visits including data collection approaches (e.g., individual vs group data collection), the circumstances on the day (e.g., time and availability of frontline staff), contextual factors (e.g., the nature of the unit/setting) and factors related to the data collection team (e.g., selection of team members involved). Recommendations have been provided to optimise future rapid HIT patient safety responses.
conclusionData collection approaches informed by HCD and HF methods are useful for understanding and addressing HIT safety concerns requiring rapid responses, even when applied by non-HF experts. Ideally, methods should be applied flexibly and involve seeking insights from frontline users in their own environments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.