No abstract

Sexually transmitted infection (STI) services, including screening, treatment, and counseling among youth, remain suboptimal. In the midst of increasing incidence of bacterial STIs, alarming STI disparities, and persistently low testing rates among youth, solution-focused and action-oriented research with youth is needed. To identify solutions to STI testing barriers, we conducted three participatory ideation workshops with 18 youth, 10 key stakeholders who work with youth, and 8 social design graduate students. In response to prompt questions asking "How might we" address a testing barrier, participants generated as many ideas as they could on small pieces of paper. The brainstorming sessions produced 702 brainstorm idea sheets that were then qualitatively analyzed through pile sorting by three team members (including two youth) with each pile representing a priori themes (from the "How might we" probe) or emergent themes. Ten themes were identified corresponding to three domains: (1) improving the testing experience (improving transparency in the testing process, increasing trust in privacy, alternative testing options, and providing incentives/rewards for testing), (2) addressing the clinic space (multi-service spaces, appealing physical clinical space, and providing waiting room activities), and (3) reframing STI testing (normalizing STI testing, the clinic as a supportive environment, and youth leadership to promote and support STI testing). These findings move beyond identifying barriers and motivators to STI testing among youth and focus on the generation of possible solutions. By engaging youth in the development of solutions to STI testing, solutions that may be better-utilized and more acceptable to youth may be developed.

Background The availability of patient outcomes–based feedback is limited in episodic care environments such as the emergency department. Emergency medicine (EM) clinicians set care trajectories for a majority of hospitalized patients and provide definitive care to an even larger number of those discharged into the community. EM clinicians are often unaware of the short- and long-term health outcomes of patients and how their actions may have contributed. Despite large volumes of patients and data, outcomes-driven learning that targets individual clinician experiences is meager. Integrated electronic health record (EHR) systems provide opportunity, but they do not have readily available functionality intended for outcomes-based learning. Objective This study sought to unlock insights from routinely collected EHR data through the development of an individualizable patient outcomes feedback platform for EM clinicians. Here, we describe the iterative development of this platform, Linking Outcomes Of Patients (LOOP), under a human-centered design framework, including structured feedback obtained from its use. Methods This multimodal study consisting of human-centered design studios, surveys (24 physicians), interviews (11 physicians), and a LOOP application usability evaluation (12 EM physicians for ≥30 minutes each) was performed between August 2019 and February 2021. The study spanned 3 phases: (1) conceptual development under a human-centered design framework, (2) LOOP technical platform development, and (3) usability evaluation comparing pre- and post-LOOP feedback gathering practices in the EHR. Results An initial human-centered design studio and EM clinician surveys revealed common themes of disconnect between EM clinicians and their patients after the encounter. Fundamental postencounter outcomes of death (15/24, 63% respondents identified as useful), escalation of care (20/24, 83%), and return to ED (16/24, 67%) were determined high yield for demonstrating proof-of-concept in our LOOP application. The studio aided the design and development of LOOP, which integrated physicians throughout the design and content iteration. A final LOOP prototype enabled usability evaluation and iterative refinement prior to launch. Usability evaluation compared to status quo (ie, pre-LOOP) feedback gathering practices demonstrated a shift across all outcomes from “not easy” to “very easy” to obtain and from “not confident” to “very confident” in estimating outcomes after using LOOP. On a scale from 0 (unlikely) to 10 (most likely), the users were very likely (9.5) to recommend LOOP to a colleague. Conclusions This study demonstrates the potential for human-centered design of a patient outcomes–driven feedback platform for individual EM providers. We have outlined a framework for working alongside clinicians with a multidisciplined team to develop and test a tool that augments their clinical experience and enables closed-loop learning.

No abstract

No abstract