Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · ACI open 2022; 06(02): e57-e65
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1749318
Case Report

Using a Sociotechnical Model to Understand Challenges with Sepsis Recognition among Critically Ill Infants

Dean J. Karavite
1   Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Mary Catherine Harris
2   Division of Neonatology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
3   Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Robert Wayne Grundmeier
1   Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
3   Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Lakshmi Srinivasan
2   Division of Neonatology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
3   Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Gerald P. Shaeffer
1   Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Naveen Muthu
1   Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
3   Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
› Author Affiliations Funding D.J.K., G.P.S., N.M., and R.W.G. reports all support from Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. L.S. and M.C.H. report all support from Department of Pediatrics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. this research was funded by the Institute for Biomedical Informatics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and the Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The funding sources had no role in the conception, study design, data collection, analysis, or decision to publish this manuscript..
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of the study is to apply a sociotechnical model to the requirements phase of implementing a machine learning algorithm-based system to support sepsis recognition in the neonatal intensive care unit.

Methods We incorporated components from the sociotechnical model, Safety in Engineering for Patient Safety 2.0, in three requirements phase activities: (1) semi-structured interviews, (2) user profiles, and (3) system use cases.

Results Thirty-one neonatal intensive care unit clinicians participated in semi-structured interviews (11 nurses, 10 front line ordering clinician, five fellows, and five attending physician). Interview transcripts were coded and then compiled into themes deductively based on components from the sociotechnical model (persons, environment, organization, tasks, tools and technology, collaboration, and outcomes). The interview analysis was used to create four user profiles defining responsibilities in sepsis recognition, team collaboration, and attributes relevant to sepsis recognition. Two user profiles (nurse, front line ordering clinician) included variants based on experience relevant to sepsis recognition. The interview analysis was used to develop three system use cases representing clinical sepsis scenarios. Each use case defines the precondition, actors, and high-level sequence of actions, and includes variants based on sociotechnical works system factors that can complicate sepsis recognition. The interview analysis, user profiles, and use cases serve as the foundation for supporting sociotechnical design to all subsequent human-centered design methods including subject recruitment, formative design, summative user testing, and simulation testing.

Conclusion Integration of the sociotechnical model-guided requirements gathering activities, analysis, and deliverables by framing a range of sociotechnical components and the interconnectedness of these components in the broader work system. Applying the sociotechnical model resulted in discovering work system, process, and outcome requirements that would otherwise be difficult to capture, or missed entirely, using traditional requirements gathering methods or approaches to clinical decision support design.

Keywords

clinical decision support - environment - clinical care - neonatology - pediatrics - domain - technology

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was determined to be exempt from human studies by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Institutional Review Board. This research was funded by the Institute for Biomedical Informatics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and the Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. The funding sources had no role in the conception, study design, data collection, analysis, or decision to publish this manuscript.


Author Contributions

D.J.K. contributions include the conception of the work, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, drafting, and revising the manuscript. L.S., M.C.H., and R.W.G. contributions include the conception of the work, analysis, and interpretation of data, and revising the manuscript. G.P.S. contributions include the conception of the work, acquisition of data, and revising the manuscript. N.M. contributions include the conception of the work, acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data, and revising the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 15 September 2021

Accepted: 14 April 2022

Article published online:
29 July 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Vogel L. Sepsis kills one million newborns a year: WHO. CMAJ 2017; 189 (40) E1272
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rudd KE, Johnson SC, Agesa KM, Shackelford KA, Tsoi D, Kievlan DR. et al. Global, regional, and national sepsis incidence and mortality, 1990–2017: analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 2020; 395: 200-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D. et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000-13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet 2015; 385 (9966): 430-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Giannoni E, Schlapbach LJ. Editorial: sepsis in neonates and children. Front Pediatr 2020; 8: 621663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Adams-Chapman I. et al; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Neurodevelopmental and growth impairment among extremely low-birth-weight infants with neonatal infection. JAMA 2004; 292 (19) 2357-2365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Stoll BJ, Hansen NI, Bell EF. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network. Neonatal outcomes of extremely preterm infants from the NICHD Neonatal Research Network. Pediatrics 2010; 126 (03) 443-456
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Cohen-Wolkowiez M, Moran C, Benjamin DK. et al. Early and late onset sepsis in late preterm infants. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2009; 28 (12) 1052-1056
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Ginestra JC, Giannini HM, Schweickert WD. et al. Clinician perception of a machine learning-based early warning system designed to predict severe sepsis and septic shock. Crit Care Med 2019; 47 (11) 1477-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 A Path for Translation of Machine Learning Products into Healthcare Delivery. EMJ Innov. 2020 January 27. March 11, 2020 Available at: https://www.emjreviews.com/innovations/article/a-path-for-translation-of-machine-learning-products-into-healthcare-delivery/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cherns A. The principles of sociotechnical design. Hum Relat 1976; 9 (08) 783-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Clegg CW. Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl Ergon 2000; 31 (05) 463-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sittig DF, Singh H. A new sociotechnical model for studying health information technology in complex adaptive healthcare systems. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19 (Suppl. 03) i68-i74
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Carayon P, Schoofs Hundt A, Karsh BT. et al. Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 2006; 15 (Suppl. 01) i50-i58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Holden RJ, Carayon P, Gurses AP. et al. SEIPS 2.0: a human factors framework for studying and improving the work of healthcare professionals and patients. Ergonomics 2013; 56 (11) 1669-1686
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Baxter G, Sommerville I. Socio-technical systems: from design methods to systems engineering. Interact Comput 2011; 23 (01) 4-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mumford E. The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf Syst J 2006; 16 (04) 317-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Berg M, Langenberg C, vd Berg I, Kwakkernaat J. Considerations for sociotechnical design: experiences with an electronic patient record in a clinical context. Int J Med Inform 1998; 52 (1-3): 243-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Masino AJ, Harris MC, Forsyth D. et al. Machine learning models for early sepsis recognition in the neonatal intensive care unit using readily available electronic health record data. PLoS One 2019; 14 (02) e0212665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Teng AK, Wilcox AB. A review of predictive analytics solutions for sepsis patients. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 387-398
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Crandall B, Getchell-Reiter K. Critical decision method: a technique for eliciting concrete assessment indicators from the intuition of NICU nurses. ANS Adv Nurs Sci 1993; 16 (01) 42-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Harte R, Quinlan LR, Andrade E. et al. Defining user needs for a new sepsis risk decision support system in neonatal ICU settings through ethnography: user interviews and participatory design. In: Ahram T, Karwowski W, Taiar R, eds. Human Systems Engineering and Design. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019: 221-227
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Cohen D, Crabtree BF, Damschroder L, Hamilton AB, Heurtin-Roberts S, Leeman J. et al. Qualitative Methods in Implementation Science. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health;
    Google Scholar
  • 23 LeRouge C, Ma J, Sneha S, Tolle K. User profiles and personas in the design and development of consumer health technologies. Int J Med Inform 2013; 82 (11) e251-e268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Holden RJ, Kulanthaivel A, Purkayastha S, Goggins KM, Kripalani S. Know thy eHealth user: Development of biopsychosocial personas from a study of older adults with heart failure. Int J Med Inform 2017; 108: 158-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cockburn A. Writing Effective Use Cases. Addison-Wesley Reading; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Hughes HPN, Clegg CW, Bolton LE, Machon LC. Systems scenarios: a tool for facilitating the socio-technical design of work systems. Ergonomics 2017; 60 (10) 1319-1335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Assarroudi A, Heshmati Nabavi F, Armat MR, Ebadi A, Vaismoradi M. Directed qualitative content analysis: the description and elaboration of its underpinning methods and data analysis process. J Res Nurs 2018; 23 (01) 42-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Osheroff J, Teich J, Levick D. et al. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: An Implementer's Guide. HIMSS; 2012: 350
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S. et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (06) 523-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Ackerman MS, Goggins SP, Herrmann T, Prilla M, Stary C. eds. Designing Healthcare That Works: A Socio-Technical Approach. London, United Kingdom: San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2018: 207
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Papoutsi C, Wherton J, Shaw S, Morrison C, Greenhalgh T. Putting the social back into sociotechnical: case studies of co-design in digital health. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (02) 284-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Hasvold PE, Scholl J. Flexibility in interaction: sociotechnical design of an operating room scheduler. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (09) 631-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wooldridge AR, Carayon P, Hundt AS, Hoonakker PLT. SEIPS-based process modeling in primary care. Appl Ergon 2017; 60: 240-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar