Inefficient Processes and Associated Factors in Primary Care Nursing: System Configuration Analysis.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Industrywide, primary care nurses' work is increasing in complexity and team orientation. Mobile health information technologies (HITs) designed to aid nurses with indirect care tasks, including charting, have had mixed success. Failed introductions of HIT may be explained by insufficient integration into nurses' work processes, owing to an incomplete or incorrect understanding of the underlying work systems. Despite this need for context, published evidence has focused more on inpatient settings than on primary care. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize nurses' and health technicians' perceptions of process inefficiencies in the primary care setting and identify related work system factors. METHODS: Guided by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) 2.0 model, we conducted an exploratory work system analysis with a convenience sample of primary care nurses and health technicians. Semistructured contextual interviews were conducted in 2 sets of primary care clinics in the Midwestern United States, one in an urban tertiary care center and the other in a rural community-based outpatient facility. Using directed qualitative content analysis of transcripts, we identified tasks participants perceived as frequent, redundant, or difficult, related processes, and recommendations for improvement. In addition, we conducted configuration analyses to identify associations between process inefficiencies and work system factors. RESULTS: We interviewed a convenience sample of 20 primary care nurses and 2 health technicians, averaging approximately 12 years of experience in their current role. Across sites, participants perceived 2 processes, managing patient calls and clinic walk-in visits, as inefficient. Among work system factors, participants described organizational and technological factors associated with inefficiencies. For example, new organization policies to decrease patient waiting invoked frequent, repetitive, and difficult tasks, including chart review and check-in using tablet computers. Participants reported that issues with policy implementation and technology usability contributed to process inefficiencies. Organizational and technological factors were also perceived among participants as the most adaptable. Suggested technology changes included new tools for walk-in triage and patient self-reporting of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: In response to changes to organizational policy and technology, without compensative changes elsewhere in their primary care work system, participants reported process adaptations. These adaptations indicate inefficient work processes. Understanding how the implementation of organizational policies affects other factors in the primary care work system may improve the quality of such implementations and, in turn, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of primary care nurse processes. Furthermore, the design and implementation of HIT interventions should consider influential work system factors and their effects on work processes.