Search

Health information technology can transform and enhance the quality and safety of care, but it may also introduce new risks. This study analysed 130 healthcare regulator inspection reports and organisational digital maturity scores in order to characterise the impact of health information technology on quality and safety from a regulatory perspective. Although digital maturity and the positive use of health information technology are significantly associated with overall organisational quality, the negative effects of health information technology are frequently and more commonly identified by regulators. The poor usability of technology, lack of easy access to systems and data and the incorrect use of health information technology are the most commonly identified areas adversely affecting quality and safety. There is a need to understand the full risks and benefits of health information technology from the perspective of all stakeholders, including patients, end-users, providers and regulators in order to best inform future practice and regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Multidisciplinary teams (MDT) formulate expert informed treatment recommendations for people with cancer. We set out to examine how the factors proposed by the functional perspective of group decision making (DM), that is, interaction process, internal factors (factors emanating from within the group such as group size), external circumstances (factors coming from the outside of the team), and case-complexity affect the quality of MDT decision making., Methods: This was a cross-sectional observational study. Three cancer MDTs were recruited with 44 members overall and 30 of their weekly meetings filmed. Validated observational instruments were used to measure quality of DM, interactions, and complexity of 822 case discussions., Results: The full regression model with the variables proposed by the functional perspective was significant, R 2  = 0.52, F(20, 801) = 43.47, P < .001, adjusted R 2  = 0.51. Positive predictors of DM quality were asking questions (P = .001), providing answers (P = .001), team size (P = .007), gender balance (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), while negative socioemotional reactions (P = .007), gender imbalance (P = .003), logistical issues (P = .001), time-workload pressures (P = .002), and time spent in the meeting (P = .001) were negative predictors. Second half of the meetings also saw significant decrease in the DM quality (P = .001), interactions (P = .001), group size (P = .003), and clinical complexity (P = .001), and an increase in negative socioemotional reactions (P = .001) and time-workload pressures (P = .001)., Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to attempt to assess the factors proposed by the functional perspective in cancer MDTs. One novel finding is the effect of sociocognitive factors on team DM quality, while another is the cognitive-catch 22 effect: while the case discussions are significantly simpler in the second half of the meeting, there is significantly less time left to discuss the remaining cases, further adding to the cognitive taxation in teams who are now rapidly attempting to close their time-workload gap. Implications are discussed in relation to quality and safety., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)