“The start of something that I hope could be greater”: Health information technology tools for social care

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Arwen Bunce , Suzanne Morrissey , Rachel Gold , Jenna Donovan , Maura Pisciotta , India Gill , Shelby L. Watkins , Brenda McGrath , Laura M. Gottlieb
{"title":"“The start of something that I hope could be greater”: Health information technology tools for social care","authors":"Arwen Bunce ,&nbsp;Suzanne Morrissey ,&nbsp;Rachel Gold ,&nbsp;Jenna Donovan ,&nbsp;Maura Pisciotta ,&nbsp;India Gill ,&nbsp;Shelby L. Watkins ,&nbsp;Brenda McGrath ,&nbsp;Laura M. Gottlieb","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Federal policies and professional guidelines in the United States increasingly encourage and incentivize health systems to collect and meaningfully respond to patients’ social risks. In response, many health systems employ health information technology to implement, standardize, and scale these social care activities. We created and evaluated electronic health record tools to support the collection and documentation of social risk information, and the integration of this information into clinical decision-making; the <span>National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine</span> labels these activities Awareness and Adjustment. Our realist-informed evaluation explored how, why, and for whom the tools did/did not support the use of social risk information in care planning in community health centers. The five-year study was completed in 2024. The dataset consisted of 41 meeting observations, 36 clinician and staff interviews, and regular team discussions regarding tool use at participating clinics. Analysis involved cyclical data querying to identify mechanisms underlying tool (non)acceptance and (non)use. Findings highlighted the importance of aligning technology to the values underlying professional identity – in this case, the value assigned to patient-centered care. Clinicians and staff perceived that Awareness tools enhanced their ability to provide patient-centered care, which led to increased uptake. In contrast, participants often felt that the Adjustment tools superseded clinician autonomy, failed to support direct patient care, and disrupted patient-clinician relationships contributing to low motivation for use. These results may be specific to the ways in which clinicians serving low-income communities conceptualize their role in social-medical integration; similar work should be undertaken in other healthcare settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100544"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Federal policies and professional guidelines in the United States increasingly encourage and incentivize health systems to collect and meaningfully respond to patients’ social risks. In response, many health systems employ health information technology to implement, standardize, and scale these social care activities. We created and evaluated electronic health record tools to support the collection and documentation of social risk information, and the integration of this information into clinical decision-making; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine labels these activities Awareness and Adjustment. Our realist-informed evaluation explored how, why, and for whom the tools did/did not support the use of social risk information in care planning in community health centers. The five-year study was completed in 2024. The dataset consisted of 41 meeting observations, 36 clinician and staff interviews, and regular team discussions regarding tool use at participating clinics. Analysis involved cyclical data querying to identify mechanisms underlying tool (non)acceptance and (non)use. Findings highlighted the importance of aligning technology to the values underlying professional identity – in this case, the value assigned to patient-centered care. Clinicians and staff perceived that Awareness tools enhanced their ability to provide patient-centered care, which led to increased uptake. In contrast, participants often felt that the Adjustment tools superseded clinician autonomy, failed to support direct patient care, and disrupted patient-clinician relationships contributing to low motivation for use. These results may be specific to the ways in which clinicians serving low-income communities conceptualize their role in social-medical integration; similar work should be undertaken in other healthcare settings.
“我希望能够取得更大成就的开端”:用于社会保健的卫生信息技术工具
美国的联邦政策和专业指南越来越多地鼓励和激励医疗系统收集并有意义地应对患者的社会风险。为此,许多医疗系统采用医疗信息技术来实施、规范和扩展这些社会护理活动。我们创建并评估了电子健康记录工具,以支持社会风险信息的收集和记录,并将这些信息整合到临床决策中;美国国家科学、工程和医学院将这些活动称为 "认识和调整"。我们以现实为依据进行评估,探讨了这些工具在社区医疗中心的护理规划中如何、为何以及对哪些人而言支持/不支持使用社会风险信息。这项为期五年的研究于 2024 年完成。数据集包括 41 次会议观察、36 次临床医生和员工访谈,以及有关参与诊所工具使用情况的定期团队讨论。分析包括循环数据查询,以确定工具(不)接受和(不)使用的内在机制。研究结果强调了将技术与职业认同的基本价值观相结合的重要性--在这种情况下,就是赋予以患者为中心的护理价值观。临床医生和员工认为,Awareness 工具提高了他们提供以患者为中心的护理的能力,从而增加了使用率。与此相反,参与者往往认为调整工具取代了临床医生的自主权,无法支持直接的患者护理,并破坏了患者与临床医生之间的关系,导致使用积极性不高。这些结果可能是服务于低收入社区的临床医生对其在社会-医疗整合中的角色的概念化方式所特有的;类似的工作应在其他医疗环境中开展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信