• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
From "wading through treacle" to "making haste slowly": A comprehensive yet parsimonious model of drivers and challenges to implementing patient data sharing projects based on an EPaCCS evaluation and four pre-existing literature reviews.从“在糖浆中跋涉”到“慢中求快”:基于电子病历与社区护理系统(EPaCCS)评估及四项现有文献综述构建的关于患者数据共享项目实施的驱动因素与挑战的全面而简约的模型
PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Apr 1;3(4):e0000470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000470. eCollection 2024 Apr.
2
Crash course in EPaCCS (Electronic Palliative Care Coordination Systems): 8 years of successes and failures in patient data sharing to learn from.电子姑息治疗协调系统速成课程:8年患者数据共享的成败经验以供借鉴。
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2018 Dec;8(4):447-455. doi: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2015-001059. Epub 2016 Sep 16.
3
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
4
5
Information sharing challenges in end-of-life care: a qualitative study of patient, family and professional perspectives on the potential of an Electronic Palliative Care Co-ordination System.临终关怀中的信息共享挑战:关于电子姑息治疗协调系统潜力的患者、家属及专业人员观点的定性研究
BMJ Open. 2020 Oct 5;10(10):e037483. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037483.
6
The Effectiveness of Integrated Care Pathways for Adults and Children in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.综合护理路径在医疗环境中对成人和儿童的有效性:一项系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2009;7(3):80-129. doi: 10.11124/01938924-200907030-00001.
7
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
8
New and emerging technology for adult social care - the example of home sensors with artificial intelligence (AI) technology.成人社会关怀新技术——以具有人工智能 (AI) 技术的家庭传感器为例。
Health Soc Care Deliv Res. 2023 Jun;11(9):1-64. doi: 10.3310/HRYW4281.
9
Mapping and characterising electronic palliative care coordination systems and their intended impact: A national survey of end-of-life care commissioners.绘制和描述电子姑息治疗协调系统及其预期影响:对临终关怀专员的全国调查。
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 14;17(10):e0275991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275991. eCollection 2022.
10
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.超越黑木树:影响澳大利亚地区、农村和偏远地区的健康研究问题的快速综述。
Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881.

本文引用的文献

1
Sharing Is Caring-Data Sharing Initiatives in Healthcare.共享即关爱——医疗保健领域的数据共享计划。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Apr 27;17(9):3046. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093046.
2
Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.研究审批的冰山:在英格兰,一项“低调”的研究为何需要 89 名专业人员来批准,以及我们如何才能做得更好。
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Jan 25;20(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12910-018-0339-5.
3
The impact of health information exchange on healthcare quality and cost-effectiveness: A systematic literature review.健康信息交换对医疗质量和成本效益的影响:系统文献回顾。
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2018 Jul;161:209-232. doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.04.023. Epub 2018 Apr 28.
4
Something's awry (again) in the debate on patient data sharing.关于患者数据共享的辩论(再次)出现了一些问题。
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Mar;68(668):133. doi: 10.3399/bjgp18X695081.
5
Long-term evaluation of a hospital-based violence intervention program using a regional health information exchange.使用区域健康信息交换对基于医院的暴力干预项目进行长期评估。
J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018 Jan;84(1):175-182. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001671.
6
GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.GRIPP2报告清单:改善患者和公众参与研究报告的工具。
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453.
7
Review of successful hospital readmission reduction strategies and the role of health information exchange.成功的医院再入院率降低策略及健康信息交换的作用综述
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Aug;104:97-104. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.05.012. Epub 2017 May 20.
8
Between "the best way to deliver patient care" and "chaos and low clinical value": General Practitioners' and Practice Managers' views on data sharing.介于“提供患者护理的最佳方式”与“混乱和低临床价值”之间:全科医生和诊所经理对数据共享的看法。
Int J Med Inform. 2017 Aug;104:74-83. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.05.009. Epub 2017 May 17.
9
Effect of health information exchange on recognition of medication discrepancies is interrupted when data charges are introduced: results of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.引入数据费用时,健康信息交换对药物差异识别的影响会受到干扰:一项整群随机对照试验的结果
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Nov 1;24(6):1095-1101. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx044.
10
Medication Harmony: A Framework to Save Time, Improve Accuracy and Increase Patient Activation.药物协调:节省时间、提高准确性并增强患者自主性的框架
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2017 Feb 10;2016:1959-1966. eCollection 2016.

从“在糖浆中跋涉”到“慢中求快”:基于电子病历与社区护理系统(EPaCCS)评估及四项现有文献综述构建的关于患者数据共享项目实施的驱动因素与挑战的全面而简约的模型

From "wading through treacle" to "making haste slowly": A comprehensive yet parsimonious model of drivers and challenges to implementing patient data sharing projects based on an EPaCCS evaluation and four pre-existing literature reviews.

作者信息

Petrova Mila, Barclay Stephen

机构信息

Palliative and End of Life Care Group in Cambridge (PELiCam), Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.

出版信息

PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Apr 1;3(4):e0000470. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000470. eCollection 2024 Apr.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0000470
PMID:38557799
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10984410/
Abstract

Conceptually, this study aimed to 1) identify the challenges and drivers encountered by England's Electronic Palliative Care Coordination System (EPaCCS) projects in the context of challenges and drivers in other projects on data sharing for individual care (also referred to as Health Information Exchange, HIE) and 2) organise them in a comprehensive yet parsimonious framework. The study also had a strong applied goal: to derive specific and non-trivial recommendations for advancing data sharing projects, particularly ones in early stages of development and implementation. Primary data comprised 40 in-depth interviews with 44 healthcare professionals, patients, carers, project team members and decision makers in Cambridgeshire, UK. Secondary data were extracted from four pre-existing literature reviews on Health Information Exchange and Health Information Technology implementation covering 135 studies. Thematic and framework analysis underpinned by "pluralist" coding were the main analytical approaches used. We reduced an initial set of >1,800 parameters into >500 challenges and >300 drivers to implementing EPaCCS and other data sharing projects. Less than a quarter of the 800+ parameters were associated primarily with the IT solution. These challenges and drivers were further condensed into an action-guiding, strategy-informing framework of nine types of "pure challenges", four types of "pure drivers", and nine types of "oppositional or ambivalent forces". The pure challenges draw parallels between patient data sharing and other broad and complex domains of sociotechnical or social practice. The pure drivers differ in how internal or external to the IT solution and project team they are, and thus in the level of control a project team has over them. The oppositional forces comprise pairs of challenges and drivers where the driver is a factor serving to resolve or counteract the challenge. The ambivalent forces are factors perceived simultaneously as a challenge and a driver depending on context, goals and perspective. The framework is distinctive in its emphasis on: 1) the form of challenges and drivers; 2) ambivalence, ambiguity and persistent tensions as fundamental forces in the field of innovation implementation; and 3) the parallels it draws with a variety of non-IT, non-health domains of practice as a source of fruitful learning. Teams working on data sharing projects need to prioritise further the shaping of social interactions and structural and contextual parameters in the midst of which their IT tools are implemented. The high number of "ambivalent forces" speaks of the vital importance for data sharing projects of skills in eliciting stakeholders' assumptions; managing conflict; and navigating multiple needs, interests and worldviews.

摘要

从概念上讲,本研究旨在:1)在个体护理数据共享(也称为健康信息交换,HIE)的其他项目所面临的挑战和驱动因素背景下,识别英格兰电子姑息治疗协调系统(EPaCCS)项目所遇到的挑战和驱动因素;2)将它们组织成一个全面但简洁的框架。该研究还有一个重要的应用目标:为推进数据共享项目,特别是处于开发和实施早期阶段的项目,得出具体且重要的建议。主要数据包括对英国剑桥郡44名医疗保健专业人员、患者、护理人员、项目团队成员和决策者进行的40次深入访谈。次要数据从关于健康信息交换和健康信息技术实施的四项现有文献综述中提取,涵盖135项研究。以“多元主义”编码为基础的主题分析和框架分析是主要使用的分析方法。我们将最初的1800多个参数减少为实施EPaCCS和其他数据共享项目的500多个挑战和300多个驱动因素。800多个参数中不到四分之一主要与信息技术解决方案相关。这些挑战和驱动因素进一步浓缩为一个指导行动、为战略提供信息的框架,包括九种“纯粹挑战”、四种“纯粹驱动因素”以及九种“对立或矛盾力量”。纯粹挑战将患者数据共享与社会技术或社会实践的其他广泛而复杂的领域进行了类比。纯粹驱动因素在其相对于信息技术解决方案和项目团队的内部或外部性质方面存在差异,因此项目团队对其控制程度也有所不同。对立力量由成对的挑战和驱动因素组成,其中驱动因素是有助于解决或抵消挑战的因素。矛盾力量是根据背景、目标和视角同时被视为挑战和驱动因素的因素。该框架的独特之处在于它强调:1)挑战和驱动因素的形式;2)矛盾、模糊性和持续的紧张关系作为创新实施领域的基本力量;3)它与各种非信息技术、非健康实践领域的类比,作为富有成效的学习来源。致力于数据共享项目的团队需要进一步优先考虑塑造社会互动以及其信息技术工具得以实施的结构和背景参数。大量的“矛盾力量”表明,对于数据共享项目而言,在引出利益相关者的假设、管理冲突以及应对多种需求、利益和世界观方面的技能至关重要。