23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding Human Factors Challenges on the Front Lines of Mass COVID-19 Vaccination Clinics: Human Systems Modeling Study

      research-article
      , BASc, MASc 1 , , , PhD 2 , 3 , , BScPharm, MSc, PharmD 2 , , PhD, PEng 1
      (Reviewer), (Reviewer)
      JMIR Human Factors
      JMIR Publications
      cognitive work analysis, contextual design, COVID-19, decision making, health care system, pandemic, vaccination clinics, workplace stress

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Implementing mass vaccination clinics for COVID-19 immunization has been a successful public health activity worldwide. However, this tightly coupled system has many logistical challenges, leading to increased workplace stress, as evidenced throughout the pandemic. The complexities of mass vaccination clinics that combine multidisciplinary teams working within nonclinical environments are yet to be understood through a human systems perspective.

          Objective

          This study aimed to holistically model mass COVID-19 vaccination clinics in the Region of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, to understand the challenges centered around frontline workers and to inform clinic design and technological recommendations that can minimize the systemic inefficiencies that contribute to workplace stress.

          Methods

          An ethnographic approach was guided by contextual inquiry to gather data on work as done in these ad-hoc immunization settings. Observation data were clarified by speaking with clinic staff, and the research team discussed the observation data regularly throughout the data collection period. Data were analyzed by combining aspects of the contextual design framework and cognitive work analysis, and building workplace models that can identify the stress points and interconnections within mass vaccination clinic flow, developed artifacts, culture, physical layouts, and decision-making.

          Results

          Observations were conducted at 6 mass COVID-19 vaccination clinics over 4 weeks in 2021. The workflow model depicted challenges with maintaining situational awareness about client intake and vaccine preparation among decision-makers. The artifacts model visualized how separately developed tools for the vaccine lead and clinic lead may support cognitive tasks through data synthesis. However, their effectiveness depends on sharing accurate and timely data. The cultural model indicated that perspectives on how to effectively achieve mass immunization might impact workplace stress with changes to responsibilities. This depends on the aggressive or relaxed approach toward minimizing vaccine waste while adapting to changing policies, regulations, and vaccine scarcity. The physical model suggested that the co-location of workstations may influence decision-making coordination. Finally, the decision ladder described the decision-making steps for managing end-of-day doses, highlighting challenges with data uncertainty and ways to support expertise.

          Conclusions

          Modeling mass COVID-19 vaccination clinics from a human systems perspective identified 2 high-level opportunities for improving the inefficiencies within this health care delivery system. First, clinics may become more resilient to unexpected changes in client intake or vaccine preparation using strategies and artifacts that standardize data gathering and synthesis, thereby reducing uncertainties for end-of-day dose decision-making. Second, improving data sharing among staff by co-locating their workstations and implementing collaborative artifacts that support a collective understanding of the state of the clinic may reduce system complexity by improving shared situational awareness. Future research should examine how the developed models apply to immunization settings beyond the Region of Waterloo and evaluate the impact of the recommendations on workflow coordination, stress, and decision-making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The use of triangulation in qualitative research.

          Triangulation refers to the use of multiple methods or data sources in qualitative research to develop a comprehensive understanding of phenomena (Patton, 1999). Triangulation also has been viewed as a qualitative research strategy to test validity through the convergence of information from different sources. Denzin (1978) and Patton (1999) identified four types of triangulation: (a) method triangulation, (b) investigator triangulation, (c) theory triangulation, and (d) data source triangulation. The current article will present the four types of triangulation followed by a discussion of the use of focus groups (FGs) and in-depth individual (IDI) interviews as an example of data source triangulation in qualitative inquiry.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango).

              Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Hum Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Human Factors
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2292-9495
                Oct-Dec 2022
                10 November 2022
                10 November 2022
                : 9
                : 4
                : e39670
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Systems Design Engineering Faculty of Engineering University of Waterloo Waterloo, ON Canada
                [2 ] School of Pharmacy University of Waterloo Kitchener, ON Canada
                [3 ] Department of Epidemiology and Global Health Umea University Umea Sweden
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Ryan Tennant drtennan@ 123456uwaterloo.ca
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0932-9510
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6833-7601
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1135-0391
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6182-958X
                Article
                v9i4e39670
                10.2196/39670
                9693702
                36219839
                20ec0434-121c-48fb-92a8-cad15e736b01
                ©Ryan Tennant, Moses Tetui, Kelly Grindrod, Catherine M Burns. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 10.11.2022.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 7 June 2022
                : 2 August 2022
                : 15 September 2022
                : 6 October 2022
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                cognitive work analysis,contextual design,covid-19,decision making,health care system,pandemic,vaccination clinics,workplace stress

                Comments

                Comment on this article