Principles for the conduct of human factors/ergonomics in healthcare: a scoping study of the published evidence.

IF 1.6 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES BMJ Open Quality Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI:10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003222
Angela O'Dea, Mahnaz Sharafkhani, Margaret Codd, Mary Browne, Paul O'Connor, Marie E Ward
{"title":"Principles for the conduct of human factors/ergonomics in healthcare: a scoping study of the published evidence.","authors":"Angela O'Dea, Mahnaz Sharafkhani, Margaret Codd, Mary Browne, Paul O'Connor, Marie E Ward","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a need for guidance to support human factors/ergonomics (HFE) practitioners to conceive and design HFE interventions that live up to the fundamental principles underpinning the discipline of HFE. The principles are that HFE has a systems focus, is design driven and focuses on both performance and well-being outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this scoping review are to: identify studies that meet these principles in order to discover how commonly HFE studies meet the principles for the practice of HFE; the scope and characteristics of studies that meet the principles; and the learning that can be gleaned from these studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>The principles were operationalised into four criteria that were used to select studies: (1) The intervention acts on more than one aspect or element of the system; (2) a context-relevant needs assessment or systems analysis phase is undertaken to design the intervention; (3) the intervention has an active element that is designed to enhance safety, quality, efficiency, effectiveness or well-being and (4) the intervention is evaluated.</p><p><strong>Sources of evidence: </strong>The review considered all studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and July 2024 in which an HFE or related intervention is presented and evaluated. Electronic searches were conducted across five databases plus Google Scholar.</p><p><strong>Charting methods: </strong>Data extraction was done by consensus using extraction forms and following two stages: (1) data extraction and (2) data interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, suggesting that adherence to core HFE principles is rare. All included studies self-identified as HFE intervention studies. All interventions had a clearly defined scope and most targeted at least four system elements, that is, person, tools, technology, task, process, organisation, environment. The 'people' element was the one most commonly targeted. A wide range of organisational level and patient outcomes were measured, but no employee safety or well-being outcomes were measured in the included studies. In all cases, the intervention team included healthcare providers working with HFE/systems engineering/improvement experts, who often led the project.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969590/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a need for guidance to support human factors/ergonomics (HFE) practitioners to conceive and design HFE interventions that live up to the fundamental principles underpinning the discipline of HFE. The principles are that HFE has a systems focus, is design driven and focuses on both performance and well-being outcomes.

Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review are to: identify studies that meet these principles in order to discover how commonly HFE studies meet the principles for the practice of HFE; the scope and characteristics of studies that meet the principles; and the learning that can be gleaned from these studies.

Eligibility criteria: The principles were operationalised into four criteria that were used to select studies: (1) The intervention acts on more than one aspect or element of the system; (2) a context-relevant needs assessment or systems analysis phase is undertaken to design the intervention; (3) the intervention has an active element that is designed to enhance safety, quality, efficiency, effectiveness or well-being and (4) the intervention is evaluated.

Sources of evidence: The review considered all studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and July 2024 in which an HFE or related intervention is presented and evaluated. Electronic searches were conducted across five databases plus Google Scholar.

Charting methods: Data extraction was done by consensus using extraction forms and following two stages: (1) data extraction and (2) data interpretation.

Results: A total of 13 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, suggesting that adherence to core HFE principles is rare. All included studies self-identified as HFE intervention studies. All interventions had a clearly defined scope and most targeted at least four system elements, that is, person, tools, technology, task, process, organisation, environment. The 'people' element was the one most commonly targeted. A wide range of organisational level and patient outcomes were measured, but no employee safety or well-being outcomes were measured in the included studies. In all cases, the intervention team included healthcare providers working with HFE/systems engineering/improvement experts, who often led the project.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医疗保健中人为因素/人体工程学的实施原则:已发表证据的范围研究。
背景:需要指导支持人因/人体工程学(HFE)从业者构思和设计符合HFE学科基础原则的HFE干预措施。其原则是HFE以系统为重点,以设计为导向,注重绩效和福祉结果。目的:本范围审查的目的是:确定符合这些原则的研究,以发现HFE研究符合HFE实践原则的普遍程度;符合原则的研究范围和特点;从这些研究中可以学到的东西。资格标准:这些原则被操作为四个标准,用于选择研究:(1)干预作用于系统的多个方面或元素;(2)进行与环境相关的需求评估或系统分析阶段,以设计干预措施;(3)干预措施具有旨在提高安全性、质量、效率、有效性或福祉的积极因素;(4)对干预措施进行了评估。证据来源:该综述考虑了2010年至2024年7月期间发表在同行评议期刊上的所有研究,其中提出并评估了HFE或相关干预措施。电子搜索是在五个数据库和谷歌Scholar上进行的。制图方法:数据抽取采用抽取形式,采用共识抽取方式,分为两个阶段:(1)数据抽取和(2)数据解释。结果:共有13项干预研究符合纳入标准,表明遵守HFE核心原则的研究很少。所有纳入的研究自我认定为HFE干预研究。所有的干预都有一个明确定义的范围,并且针对至少四个系统元素,即人、工具、技术、任务、过程、组织、环境。“人”是最常见的攻击目标。广泛的组织水平和患者结果被测量,但没有员工的安全或福祉结果在纳入的研究测量。在所有情况下,干预团队都包括与HFE/系统工程/改进专家合作的医疗保健提供者,他们通常领导项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Enhancing hand hygiene compliance to reduce healthcare-associated infections in a coronary care unit: a quality improvement initiative in a tertiary hospital in South India. Scalable treatment algorithm focused on hypertension management for the University of California. Improving GIRFT compliance and patient experience of accessibility and shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement: incorporation of a digital patient information leaflet. Improved pain management after tonsil surgery in adults: a quality improvement programme. Impact of establishing a comprehensive tobacco cessation service at a primary healthcare setting in the quit attempts: a quality improvement project.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1