No abstract

Background: Computerized decision support systems (CDSS) provide new opportunities for automating antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) interventions and integrating them in routine healthcare. CDSS are recommended as part of AMS programs by international guidelines but few have been implemented so far. In the context of the publicly funded COMPuterized Antibiotic Stewardship Study (COMPASS), we developed and implemented two CDSSs for antimicrobial prescriptions integrated into the in-house electronic health records of two public hospitals in Switzerland. Developing and implementing such systems was a unique opportunity for learning during which we faced several challenges. In this narrative review we describe key lessons learned.Recommendations: (1) During the initial planning and development stage, start by drafting the CDSS as an algorithm and use a standardized format to communicate clearly the desired functionalities of the tool to all stakeholders. (2) Set up a multidisciplinary team bringing together Information Technologies (IT) specialists with development expertise, clinicians familiar with “real-life” processes in the wards and if possible, involve collaborators having knowledge in both areas. (3) When designing the CDSS, make the underlying decision-making process transparent for physicians and start simple and make sure to find the right balance between force and persuasion to ensure adoption by end-users. (4) Correctly assess the clinical and economic impact of your tool, therefore try to use standardized terminologies and limit the use of free text for analysis purpose. (5) At the implementation stage, plan usability testing early, develop an appropriate training plan suitable to end users' skills and time-constraints and think ahead of additional challenges related to the study design that may occur (such as a cluster randomized trial). Stay also tuned to react quickly during the intervention phase. (6) Finally, during the assessment stage plan ahead maintenance, adaptation and related financial challenges and stay connected with institutional partners to leverage potential synergies with other informatics projects.

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Health information exchange (HIE) systems are computer tools that healthcare providers use to share patients’ medical information electronically. Our study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by general practitioners (GPs) when using an HIE system in the Canton of Ticino, a region in southern Switzerland. METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Ten GPs participated in the study. We analysed transcripts using thematic content analysis and following an abductive approach (a mix of deductive and inductive approaches). RESULTS: Our findings indicate the following main facilitators of the HIE system: (a) the perception of having to do with a secure system; (b) the possibility of delegating its management to secretaries and healthcare assistants; (c) technical support and training; (d) high quality of the information exchanged; (e) positive impact on clinical practice; and (f) regional context. However, major challenges still persist, and GPs reported the following main barriers to using an HIE system: (a) a frequent lack of all the patient documentation they needed; (b) no effective workflow improvements; and (c) lack of some technical features. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study provide a qualitative perspective of opinions and experiences of GPs that can inform improvements of the current HIE system and future federal and cantonal HIE initiatives in Switzerland and elsewhere.

Background Health information exchange (HIE) systems, that are computer-based tools used by healthcare providers for secure access to share patient's medical information electronically, seem to help reduce the use of specific resources and improve the quality of care. This highlights the importance of this issue in the Public Health sector. This research goal is to identify barriers and facilitators perceived by general practitioners (GPs) when using an HIE system in a Southern Switzerland area. Methods we performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, interviewed 10 GPs, randomly selected among some 500 HIE system local users and analysed interview transcripts using thematic content analysis with an abductive approach (a mix of deductive and inductive approaches). Results findings showed the following key facilitators: a) perception of dealing with a secure system; b) possibility of delegating management to secretaries and healthcare assistants; c) technical support and training; d) high quality of the information exchange; e) positive impact on clinical practice; and f) regional context. However, major challenges persist, and GPs reported the following main barriers to using an HIE system: a) frequent lack of all patient information needed; b) no effective workflow improvements; c) lack of some technical features. Conclusions We propose four recommendations based on findings: 1. Future initiatives should focus on developing HIE systems giving GPs access to all possible patient medical information; 2. Crucial data privacy and security issues should never be overlooked; 3. Technical and workflow improvements should particularly consider the socio-technical nature of HIE systems; 4. Much attention needs to be paid to the importance of relationships between health care providers and between these and local health institutions when implementing HIE systems. Key messages This study filled a research gap as it is the first that tackles HIE system barriers and facilitators in Ticino. When information sharing for clinical practice focuses on improving the quality and costs of healthcare, GP's trust in HIE system security is crucial.

We synthesised views and experiences of three teams (student mentees, alumni mentors, and staff) in our pilot mentorship scheme within a distance learning MSc, evaluated the scheme, and developed a conceptual model of “triadic partnerships.” Thematic analysis of our qualitative data revealed a strong consensus across all teams. The triadic partnerships were reported to help reduce the feeling of “distance” in distance learning. Through developing triadic partnerships, our mentorship scheme provided added value beyond that offered previously by staff alone: credible and relatable authenticity within supportive mentoring by alumni. Since the scheme’s launch, student engagement has increased, with high levels of reported satisfaction and positive feedback and greater confidence among all teams. Our research connects the framework developed by Healey et al. (2014, 2016) to the literature on mentoring, offering a conceptual model on triadic partnerships. We encourage readers to consider the different relationships within multidimensional student partnerships in their own contexts.