Chrysanthi Papoutsi1, Joseph Wherton1, Sara Shaw1, Clare Morrison2, Trisha Greenhalgh1. 1. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Medical Sciences Division, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 2. Technology Enabled Care Programme, Scottish Government, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine co-design in 3 contrasting case studies of technology-supported change in health care and explain its role in influencing project success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Longitudinal case studies of a seizure detection and reporting technology for epilepsy (Southern England, 2018-2019), a telehealth service for heart failure (7 UK sites, 2016-2018), and a remote video consultation service (Scotland-wide, 2019-2020). We carried out interviews with 158 participants and collected more than 200 pages of field notes from observations. Within- and cross-case analysis was informed by sociotechnical theory. RESULTS: In the epilepsy case, co-design prioritized patient-facing features and focused closely around a specific clinic, which led to challenges with sustainability and mainstreaming. In the heart failure case, patient-focused co-design produced an accessible and usable patient portal but resulted in variation in uptake between clinical sites. Successful scale-up of video consultations was explained by a co-design process involving not only the technical interface, but also careful reshaping of work practices. DISCUSSION: A shift is needed from co-designing with technology users to co-designing with patients as service users, and with healthcare staff as professionals. Good co-design needs to involve users, including those who engage with the technology-supported service bothdirectly and indirectly. It requires sensitivity to emergence and unpredictability in complex systems. Healthcare staff need to be supported to accommodate iterative change in the service. Adequate resourcing and infrastructures for systems-focused co-design are essential. CONCLUSIONS: If co-design focuses narrowly on the technology, opportunities will be missed to coevolve technologies alongside clinical practices and organizational routines.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine co-design in 3 contrasting case studies of technology-supported change in health care and explain its role in influencing project success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Longitudinal case studies of a seizure detection and reporting technology for epilepsy (Southern England, 2018-2019), a telehealth service for heart failure (7 UK sites, 2016-2018), and a remote video consultation service (Scotland-wide, 2019-2020). We carried out interviews with 158 participants and collected more than 200 pages of field notes from observations. Within- and cross-case analysis was informed by sociotechnical theory. RESULTS: In the epilepsy case, co-design prioritized patient-facing features and focused closely around a specific clinic, which led to challenges with sustainability and mainstreaming. In the heart failure case, patient-focused co-design produced an accessible and usable patient portal but resulted in variation in uptake between clinical sites. Successful scale-up of video consultations was explained by a co-design process involving not only the technical interface, but also careful reshaping of work practices. DISCUSSION: A shift is needed from co-designing with technology users to co-designing with patients as service users, and with healthcare staff as professionals. Good co-design needs to involve users, including those who engage with the technology-supported service bothdirectly and indirectly. It requires sensitivity to emergence and unpredictability in complex systems. Healthcare staff need to be supported to accommodate iterative change in the service. Adequate resourcing and infrastructures for systems-focused co-design are essential. CONCLUSIONS: If co-design focuses narrowly on the technology, opportunities will be missed to coevolve technologies alongside clinical practices and organizational routines.
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Tosha B Wetterneck; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Peter Hoonakker; Richard Holden; Ayse P Gurses Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Tracey Chantler; Chris Paton; Carmelo Velardo; Andreas Triantafyllidis; Syed A Shah; Emma Stoppani; Nathalie Conrad; Ray Fitzpatrick; Lionel Tarassenko; Kazem Rahimi Journal: Digit Health Date: 2016-10-10
Authors: Kim M Unertl; Chris L Schaefbauer; Terrance R Campbell; Charles Senteio; Katie A Siek; Suzanne Bakken; Tiffany C Veinot Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chrysanthi Papoutsi; Christian D E Collins; Alexandra Christopher; Sara E Shaw; Trisha Greenhalgh Journal: Sociol Health Illn Date: 2021-04-01
Authors: Rupa S Valdez; Sophie E Lyon; Claire Wellbeloved-Stone; Mary Collins; Courtney C Rogers; Kristine D Cantin-Garside; Diogo Gonclaves Fortes; Chung Kim; Shaalini S Desai; Jessica Keim-Malpass; Raja Kushalnagar Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 7.942
Authors: Jacqueline M Soegaard Ballester; Geoffrey D Bass; Richard Urbani; Glenn Fala; Rutvij Patel; Damien Leri; Jackson M Steinkamp; Joshua L Denson; Roy Rosin; Srinath Adusumalli; Clarence William Hanson; Ross Koppel; Subha Airan-Javia Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 2.342