Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T16:24:26.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Implementation of computerized technology in a palliative care unit

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 February 2009

Beate André*
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Research & Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Faculty of Nursing, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Norway
Gerd I. Ringdal
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences and Technology Management, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Jon H. Loge
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Research & Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Ullevål University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
Toril Rannestad
Affiliation:
Faculty of Nursing, Sør-Trøndelag University College, Norway
Stein Kaasa
Affiliation:
Department of Cancer Research & Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway Palliative Medicine Unit, Department of Oncology, St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Beate André, Department of Cancer Research & Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, 5th floor cancer building, St. Olavs Hospital, N-7005 Trondheim, Norway. E-mail: beate.andre@ntnu.no

Abstract

Objective:

Symptom assessment is important in palliative care. Computerized technology (CT) is now available for use in such assessments. Barriers against implementation of CT in health care in general are well known, but less is known about how such technology is perceived by palliative health care personnel. The aim of the present study was to investigate the experience with implementation of CT among personnel in symptom assessment at a palliative care unit.

Method:

Seventeen respondents from a hospital ward unit and an outpatient clinic unit participated in an in-depth interview. A qualitative approach was used in collecting and analyzing the data.

Results:

Respondents at the hospital ward unit were better motivated than respondents at an outpatient clinic unit. It was stated that the health condition of the patient is important in their perception of the tool as useful or not. Conflicts between “high tech” and “high touch” were reported in both units.

Significance of results:

When the implementation process is conducted in such a manner that the health care personnel are involved, benefits of the tool can be realized. Thus, effective implementation and use of high tech can lead to more time released for high touch.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, J.G. (2000). Evaluating clinical information systems: A step towards reducing medical errors. M.D. Computing, 17, 2123.Google ScholarPubMed
André, B., Ringdal, G.I., Loge, J.H., et al. (2006). Implementation of computerized tools in health care units—A review. Psychology & Health, 21, 12.Google Scholar
André, B., Ringdal, G.I., Loge, J.H., et al. (2008). Experiences with implementation of computerized tools in health care units—A review article. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(8), 753775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartholomew, K. & Curtis, K. (2004). High-tech, high-touch: Why wait? Nursing Management, 35, 4854.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Center for Quality Management. (1997). Concept engineering. Cambridge: QOM Quality Improvment ToolKit.Google Scholar
Coeling, H.V. & Wilcox, J.R. (1990). Using organizational culture to facilitate the change process. ANNA Journal, 17, 231241.Google Scholar
Gadamer, H.G. (1983). [Relationship between authority and freedom to criticize]. Schweizer Archiv für Neurologie, Neurochirurgie und Psychiatrie, 133, 1116.Google ScholarPubMed
Gloth, F.M. III, Coleman, E.A., Phillips, S.L., et al. (2005). Using electronic health records to improve care: Will “high tech” allow a return to “high touch” medicine? Journal of the American Medical Directors Association, 6, 270275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Y.Y., Carcillo, J.A., Venkataraman, S.T., et al. (2005). Unexpected increased mortality after implementation of a commercially sold computerized physician order entry system. Pediatrics, 116, 15061512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harrington, S.S. & Walker, B.L. (2002). A comparison of computer-based and instructor-led training for long-term care staff. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 33, 3945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendrickson, G. & Kovner, C.T. (1990). Effects of computers on nursing resource use. Do computers save nurses time? Computers in Nursing, 8, 1622.Google ScholarPubMed
Horsley, A. & Forster, L. (2005). Handheld computers in medicine: The way forward. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 81, 481482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaasa, S. & Loge, J.H. (2003). Quality of life in palliative care: Principles and practice. Palliative Medicine, 17, 1120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kole, L.A. (2003). Melding high-tech medicine with high-touch patient care. JAAPA, 16, 911.Google ScholarPubMed
Koppel, R., Metlay, J.P., Cohen, A., et al. (2005). Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. JAMA, 293, 11971203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Lærum, H., Gutvik, F., & Kaasa, S. (2002). Palm TPAT versjon 1.0. Brukerveiledning. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Laerum, H., Karlsen, T.H., & Faxvaag, A. (2004). Use of and attitudes to a hospital information system by medical secretaries, nurses and physicians deprived of the paper-based medical record: A case report. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 4, 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenzi, N.M. & Riley, R.T. (2000). Managing change: An overview. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 7, 116124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lorenzi, N.M., Riley, R.T., & Dewan, N.A. (2001). Barriers and resistance to informatics in behavioral health. Medinfo, 10, 13011304.Google Scholar
McAlearney, A.S., Schweikhart, S.B., & Medow, M.A. (2004). Doctors' experience with handheld computers in clinical practice: Qualitative study. British Medical Journal, 328, 1162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Oliver, D.R. & Demiris, G. (2004). An assessment of the readiness of hospice organizations to accept technological innovation. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 10, 170174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rabinowitz, E. (2005). High-tech, high-touch: Home-based telemedicine is expanding access to care and maximizing resources. AHIP Coverage, 46, 3640.Google ScholarPubMed
Riessman, C.K. (1993). Narrative analysis. Qualitative Research Methods, Volume 30. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Saunders, C. (1965). ‘Watch with me’. Nursing Times, 61, 16151617.Google ScholarPubMed
Smith, M.J., Conway, F.T., & Karsh, B.T. (1999). Occupational stress in human computer interaction. Industrial Health, 37, 157173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stromgren, A.S., Groenvold, M., Pedersen, L., et al. (2001). Does the medical record cover the symptoms experienced by cancer patients receiving palliative care? A comparison of the record and patient self-rating. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 21, 189196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Kleffens, T., Van Baarsen, B., Hoekman, K., et al. (2004). Clarifying the term ‘palliative’ in clinical oncology. European Journal of Cancer Care, 13, 263271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed