Back

Guidance on the human-centred design of effective work procedures to support healthcare performance: a pragmatic consensus study

Bowie, P.; Ives, F.; Hignett, S.; Pickup, L.; Ramsden, C.; Ross, A.; Herlihey, T.; Makeham, M.; Vosper, H.; Sujan, M.; Horsley, C.; de Wet, C.; Carson-Stevens, A.

2025-11-30 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2025.11.26.25341049 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe inadequate design of work procedures is often cited as a contributory factor in patient safety incidents globally, indicating a potential learning need for healthcare teams. Further, the recent COVID-19 pandemic has necessarily witnessed a proliferation of new and re-designed work procedures introduced as staff adapted to altered working conditions, work environments and expanded job roles. In response, this study aimed to rapidly develop guidance on the human-centred design of work procedures by and for healthcare teams. MethodsA rapid, pragmatic consensus building study using a modified-Delphi involving international multi-professional experts was undertaken during April 2020. 66 study participants comprising healthcare professionals (n=49) and Human Factors/Safety Science specialists (n=17), based across six countries, were identified from healthcare networks and contributed to the rapid guidance development, informed by Human Factors design principles. ResultsTen key guidance steps and descriptors were identified and agreed upon on how to better develop and implement work procedures based on Human Factors design principles. Examples include: Ensure a procedure is needed; Involve the whole team; Identify the hazards; Capture work-as-done; Test it out; Train people; Put it into practice and Keep it under review. ConclusionsThe developed guidance outlines a series of good practice principles for care teams in this area. The guidance is freely accessible and will be of interest to healthcare teams at the sharp end of clinical practice, risk, safety and improvement advisors, and educators at all levels internationally both in response to crises situations and in routine healthcare delivery.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.