评估系统思维方法在医疗保健领域的应用：对 AcciMap 和 Net-HARMS 的 RE-AIM 分析。

IF 2 3区工程技术 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Ergonomics Pub Date : 2024-11-17 DOI:10.1080/00140139.2024.2423170

Brandon J King, Gemma J M Read, Adam Hulme, Satyan Chari, Robyn Clay-Williams, Katherine L Plant, Linda McCormack, Michael Tresillian, Paul M Salmon

{"title":"评估系统思维方法在医疗保健领域的应用：对 AcciMap 和 Net-HARMS 的 RE-AIM 分析。","authors":"Brandon J King, Gemma J M Read, Adam Hulme, Satyan Chari, Robyn Clay-Williams, Katherine L Plant, Linda McCormack, Michael Tresillian, Paul M Salmon","doi":"10.1080/00140139.2024.2423170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There are increasing calls for the application of systems ergonomics methods in healthcare, although evidence for their utility and uptake is limited. In this study, 67 Australian healthcare workers participated in a six-month longitudinal study where they were trained to apply the AcciMap adverse event analysis and Net-HARMS risk assessment methods. Data were gathered in line with the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) evaluation framework, including rates of organisational uptake and method validity, perceived workload, usability, and barriers and facilitators to use in practice. Overall RE-AIM ratings for AcciMap were relatively high, and more moderate for Net-HARMS. Time constraints was the most frequently identified barrier to the use of both methods in practice, while there was more organisational resistance to Net-HARMS uptake. Facilitators for the use of both methods include providing quality training and mentorship, additional time and software resources, and dedicated job roles.","PeriodicalId":50503,"journal":{"name":"Ergonomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the use of systems thinking methods in healthcare: a RE-AIM analysis of AcciMap and Net-HARMS.\",\"authors\":\"Brandon J King, Gemma J M Read, Adam Hulme, Satyan Chari, Robyn Clay-Williams, Katherine L Plant, Linda McCormack, Michael Tresillian, Paul M Salmon\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/00140139.2024.2423170\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There are increasing calls for the application of systems ergonomics methods in healthcare, although evidence for their utility and uptake is limited. In this study, 67 Australian healthcare workers participated in a six-month longitudinal study where they were trained to apply the AcciMap adverse event analysis and Net-HARMS risk assessment methods. Data were gathered in line with the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) evaluation framework, including rates of organisational uptake and method validity, perceived workload, usability, and barriers and facilitators to use in practice. Overall RE-AIM ratings for AcciMap were relatively high, and more moderate for Net-HARMS. Time constraints was the most frequently identified barrier to the use of both methods in practice, while there was more organisational resistance to Net-HARMS uptake. Facilitators for the use of both methods include providing quality training and mentorship, additional time and software resources, and dedicated job roles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ergonomics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ergonomics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2423170\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergonomics","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2024.2423170","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在医疗保健领域应用系统人体工程学方法的呼声日益高涨，但有关这些方法的效用和应用情况的证据却十分有限。在这项研究中，67 名澳大利亚医护人员参加了一项为期 6 个月的纵向研究，并接受了应用 AcciMap 不良事件分析和 Net-HARMS 风险评估方法的培训。研究人员按照 RE-AIM（普及、功效、采用、实施和维护）评估框架收集数据，包括组织采纳率和方法有效性、感知工作量、可用性以及在实践中使用的障碍和促进因素。对 AcciMap 的 RE-AIM 总体评价相对较高，对 Net-HARMS 的评价较低。时间限制是在实践中使用这两种方法最常见的障碍，而对 Net-HARMS 的采用则存在更多的组织阻力。使用这两种方法的促进因素包括提供高质量的培训和指导、额外的时间和软件资源以及专门的工作角色。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Evaluating the use of systems thinking methods in healthcare: a RE-AIM analysis of AcciMap and Net-HARMS.

There are increasing calls for the application of systems ergonomics methods in healthcare, although evidence for their utility and uptake is limited. In this study, 67 Australian healthcare workers participated in a six-month longitudinal study where they were trained to apply the AcciMap adverse event analysis and Net-HARMS risk assessment methods. Data were gathered in line with the RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) evaluation framework, including rates of organisational uptake and method validity, perceived workload, usability, and barriers and facilitators to use in practice. Overall RE-AIM ratings for AcciMap were relatively high, and more moderate for Net-HARMS. Time constraints was the most frequently identified barrier to the use of both methods in practice, while there was more organisational resistance to Net-HARMS uptake. Facilitators for the use of both methods include providing quality training and mentorship, additional time and software resources, and dedicated job roles.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Ergonomics 工程技术-工程：工业

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

12.50%

发文量

147

审稿时长

6 months

期刊介绍： Ergonomics, also known as human factors, is the scientific discipline that seeks to understand and improve human interactions with products, equipment, environments and systems. Drawing upon human biology, psychology, engineering and design, Ergonomics aims to develop and apply knowledge and techniques to optimise system performance, whilst protecting the health, safety and well-being of individuals involved. The attention of ergonomics extends across work, leisure and other aspects of our daily lives. The journal Ergonomics is an international refereed publication, with a 60 year tradition of disseminating high quality research. Original submissions, both theoretical and applied, are invited from across the subject, including physical, cognitive, organisational and environmental ergonomics. Papers reporting the findings of research from cognate disciplines are also welcome, where these contribute to understanding equipment, tasks, jobs, systems and environments and the corresponding needs, abilities and limitations of people. All published research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees.