Kai Zheng1, Michael H Guo, David A Hanauer. 1. School of Public Health, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029, USA. kzheng@umich.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify ways for improving the consistency of design, conduct, and results reporting of time and motion (T&M) research in health informatics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the commonalities and divergences of empirical studies published 1990-2010 that have applied the T&M approach to examine the impact of health IT implementation on clinical work processes and workflow. The analysis led to the development of a suggested 'checklist' intended to help future T&M research produce compatible and comparable results. We call this checklist STAMP (Suggested Time And Motion Procedures). RESULTS: STAMP outlines a minimum set of 29 data/ information elements organized into eight key areas, plus three supplemental elements contained in an 'Ancillary Data' area, that researchers may consider collecting and reporting in their future T&M endeavors. DISCUSSION: T&M is generally regarded as the most reliable approach for assessing the impact of health IT implementation on clinical work. However, there exist considerable inconsistencies in how previous T&M studies were conducted and/or how their results were reported, many of which do not seem necessary yet can have a significant impact on quality of research and generalisability of results. Therefore, we deem it is time to call for standards that can help improve the consistency of T&M research in health informatics. This study represents an initial attempt. CONCLUSION: We developed a suggested checklist to improve the methodological and results reporting consistency of T&M research, so that meaningful insights can be derived from across-study synthesis and health informatics, as a field, will be able to accumulate knowledge from these studies.
OBJECTIVE: To identify ways for improving the consistency of design, conduct, and results reporting of time and motion (T&M) research in health informatics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the commonalities and divergences of empirical studies published 1990-2010 that have applied the T&M approach to examine the impact of health IT implementation on clinical work processes and workflow. The analysis led to the development of a suggested 'checklist' intended to help future T&M research produce compatible and comparable results. We call this checklist STAMP (Suggested Time And Motion Procedures). RESULTS: STAMP outlines a minimum set of 29 data/ information elements organized into eight key areas, plus three supplemental elements contained in an 'Ancillary Data' area, that researchers may consider collecting and reporting in their future T&M endeavors. DISCUSSION: T&M is generally regarded as the most reliable approach for assessing the impact of health IT implementation on clinical work. However, there exist considerable inconsistencies in how previous T&M studies were conducted and/or how their results were reported, many of which do not seem necessary yet can have a significant impact on quality of research and generalisability of results. Therefore, we deem it is time to call for standards that can help improve the consistency of T&M research in health informatics. This study represents an initial attempt. CONCLUSION: We developed a suggested checklist to improve the methodological and results reporting consistency of T&M research, so that meaningful insights can be derived from across-study synthesis and health informatics, as a field, will be able to accumulate knowledge from these studies.
Authors: Hagop S Mekhjian; Rajee R Kumar; Lynn Kuehn; Thomas D Bentley; Phyllis Teater; Andrew Thomas; Beth Payne; Asif Ahmad Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Eric G Poon; Kenneth Guappone; Emily Campbell; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Carol A Keohane; Anne D Bane; Erica Featherstone; Judy Hayes; Seth Woolf; Ann Hurley; David W Bates; Tejal K Gandhi; Eric G Poon Journal: J Nurs Adm Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 1.737
Authors: Ross Koppel; Joshua P Metlay; Abigail Cohen; Brian Abaluck; A Russell Localio; Stephen E Kimmel; Brian L Strom Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mary Regina Boland; Alexander Rusanov; Yat So; Carlos Lopez-Jimenez; Linda Busacca; Richard C Steinman; Suzanne Bakken; J Thomas Bigger; Chunhua Weng Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mustafa Ozkaynak; Patricia Flatley Brennan; David A Hanauer; Sharon Johnson; Jos Aarts; Kai Zheng; Saira N Haque Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 4.497