Principles for the conduct of human factors/ergonomics in healthcare: a scoping study of the published evidence.

IF 1.3 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Angela O'Dea, Mahnaz Sharafkhani, Margaret Codd, Mary Browne, Paul O'Connor, Marie E Ward
{"title":"Principles for the conduct of human factors/ergonomics in healthcare: a scoping study of the published evidence.","authors":"Angela O'Dea, Mahnaz Sharafkhani, Margaret Codd, Mary Browne, Paul O'Connor, Marie E Ward","doi":"10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a need for guidance to support human factors/ergonomics (HFE) practitioners to conceive and design HFE interventions that live up to the fundamental principles underpinning the discipline of HFE. The principles are that HFE has a systems focus, is design driven and focuses on both performance and well-being outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objectives of this scoping review are to: identify studies that meet these principles in order to discover how commonly HFE studies meet the principles for the practice of HFE; the scope and characteristics of studies that meet the principles; and the learning that can be gleaned from these studies.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>The principles were operationalised into four criteria that were used to select studies: (1) The intervention acts on more than one aspect or element of the system; (2) a context-relevant needs assessment or systems analysis phase is undertaken to design the intervention; (3) the intervention has an active element that is designed to enhance safety, quality, efficiency, effectiveness or well-being and (4) the intervention is evaluated.</p><p><strong>Sources of evidence: </strong>The review considered all studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and July 2024 in which an HFE or related intervention is presented and evaluated. Electronic searches were conducted across five databases plus Google Scholar.</p><p><strong>Charting methods: </strong>Data extraction was done by consensus using extraction forms and following two stages: (1) data extraction and (2) data interpretation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, suggesting that adherence to core HFE principles is rare. All included studies self-identified as HFE intervention studies. All interventions had a clearly defined scope and most targeted at least four system elements, that is, person, tools, technology, task, process, organisation, environment. The 'people' element was the one most commonly targeted. A wide range of organisational level and patient outcomes were measured, but no employee safety or well-being outcomes were measured in the included studies. In all cases, the intervention team included healthcare providers working with HFE/systems engineering/improvement experts, who often led the project.</p>","PeriodicalId":9052,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Open Quality","volume":"14 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11969590/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Open Quality","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2024-003222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a need for guidance to support human factors/ergonomics (HFE) practitioners to conceive and design HFE interventions that live up to the fundamental principles underpinning the discipline of HFE. The principles are that HFE has a systems focus, is design driven and focuses on both performance and well-being outcomes.

Objectives: The objectives of this scoping review are to: identify studies that meet these principles in order to discover how commonly HFE studies meet the principles for the practice of HFE; the scope and characteristics of studies that meet the principles; and the learning that can be gleaned from these studies.

Eligibility criteria: The principles were operationalised into four criteria that were used to select studies: (1) The intervention acts on more than one aspect or element of the system; (2) a context-relevant needs assessment or systems analysis phase is undertaken to design the intervention; (3) the intervention has an active element that is designed to enhance safety, quality, efficiency, effectiveness or well-being and (4) the intervention is evaluated.

Sources of evidence: The review considered all studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2010 and July 2024 in which an HFE or related intervention is presented and evaluated. Electronic searches were conducted across five databases plus Google Scholar.

Charting methods: Data extraction was done by consensus using extraction forms and following two stages: (1) data extraction and (2) data interpretation.

Results: A total of 13 intervention studies met the inclusion criteria, suggesting that adherence to core HFE principles is rare. All included studies self-identified as HFE intervention studies. All interventions had a clearly defined scope and most targeted at least four system elements, that is, person, tools, technology, task, process, organisation, environment. The 'people' element was the one most commonly targeted. A wide range of organisational level and patient outcomes were measured, but no employee safety or well-being outcomes were measured in the included studies. In all cases, the intervention team included healthcare providers working with HFE/systems engineering/improvement experts, who often led the project.

医疗保健中人为因素/人体工程学的实施原则:已发表证据的范围研究。
背景:需要指导支持人因/人体工程学(HFE)从业者构思和设计符合HFE学科基础原则的HFE干预措施。其原则是HFE以系统为重点,以设计为导向,注重绩效和福祉结果。目的:本范围审查的目的是:确定符合这些原则的研究,以发现HFE研究符合HFE实践原则的普遍程度;符合原则的研究范围和特点;从这些研究中可以学到的东西。资格标准:这些原则被操作为四个标准,用于选择研究:(1)干预作用于系统的多个方面或元素;(2)进行与环境相关的需求评估或系统分析阶段,以设计干预措施;(3)干预措施具有旨在提高安全性、质量、效率、有效性或福祉的积极因素;(4)对干预措施进行了评估。证据来源:该综述考虑了2010年至2024年7月期间发表在同行评议期刊上的所有研究,其中提出并评估了HFE或相关干预措施。电子搜索是在五个数据库和谷歌Scholar上进行的。制图方法:数据抽取采用抽取形式,采用共识抽取方式,分为两个阶段:(1)数据抽取和(2)数据解释。结果:共有13项干预研究符合纳入标准,表明遵守HFE核心原则的研究很少。所有纳入的研究自我认定为HFE干预研究。所有的干预都有一个明确定义的范围,并且针对至少四个系统元素,即人、工具、技术、任务、过程、组织、环境。“人”是最常见的攻击目标。广泛的组织水平和患者结果被测量,但没有员工的安全或福祉结果在纳入的研究测量。在所有情况下,干预团队都包括与HFE/系统工程/改进专家合作的医疗保健提供者,他们通常领导项目。
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
BMJ Open Quality
BMJ Open Quality Nursing-Leadership and Management
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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