So far, we have tentatively established a bare slate on which to record initial information regarding end-use. We now have a database table that holds classes entitled Healthcare and Crisis; within the Healthcare class are the classes Healthcare Professionals, Work, and Patients/Recipients, with the Work class between the two classes of humans. Each class of humans can now be further differentiated.
We researchers can either laboriously fill in these blanks ourselves, or we can allow the users to fill out their own data. (Either way, this is accomplished by a method called instantiation.)
However, the task of filling out all possible fields for all possible healthcare professionals, all possible work, and all possible patients might get too large for us to do by ourselves. Therefore, we must allow the healthcare professionals to fill out their own data, since healthcare professionals are the entities who, in reality, not only create instances for themselves, they know their work, and they also create the instances for the patients—whenever these patients show up for treatment.
Therefore, the format for the study of end-use has been established: End-users (healthcare professionals) will be allowed to submit information onto the fields that we provide. An end-user's willingness to participate in this study is all that is needed. (Confidentiality and security can be considered later.)
The computer is ready to receive the information, but the human end-users have neither incentive, ability, nor understanding of our goals and objectives; the interface is still undefined. If our mission is to create user-centered software, thereby rendering "friendly" usability of the healthcare informatics system, we need to do exactly that by translating the computer's mission to those who are using it—we do not force healthcare workers to learn a database application—or any other kind of application.
Moreover, since healthcare professionals are those who are experts in their own jobs, we must allow them to easily amend the system that we provide for them as we study them. If our mission is to study the end-use of healthcare professionals so that we can design a user-friendly informatics system for them so that they can more easily accomplish their work, we must make it our priority to provide flexible service to each willing healthcare professional—as they, themselves, define their own study criteria.
By allowing healthcare professionals to change the very structure of our study to better describe their own work, we can better describe the work that they perform. At no time do we tell brain surgeons, or any other professionals, how to do their jobs; this is true as we study healthcare user scenarios, or any other time. This ability for healthcare professionals to amend their own work descriptions must be preconceived and hard-coded into the system.
The job of treating patients is difficult enough without adding to the difficulty of fumbling through a new piece of software. We need to cater to them, not visa versa. So, we, ourselves, need to be flexible in our presentation to these professionals.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
#8. Inside These Classes.
Three classes that describe Healthcare have been established: (Healthcare Professionals), (Work) and (Patients); these classes will contain the information that will be compiled to render end-user criteria upon which to build a user-centered healthcare informatics system.
Researchers can record the research into these classes onto a napkin, or even in a spreadsheet—however, we should give ourselves lots of room to expand and explore. Therefore, let's begin by recording the information that we attain from end-users into a database.
We know that this information will be stored within the aforementioned three containers, but the containers should not limit the need to expand the data held within. Therefore, we will setup three scalable database structures that retain information, and will not limit the potential to interact with one another later on.
This first class, (Healthcare Professionals), comprising doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, and the like, must posses the ability to hold pertinent instantiated information regarding individuals who administer the healthcare. The third class, (Patients), will hold instantiated information regarding individuals who receive the care; this information is the patients' records. (Instantiation within these classes manifests as mere attributes to their objects, like adjectives describe their nouns.)
However, the interaction between these two classes—the class entitled (Work)—requires a bit more investigation. Describing (Work) for the purpose of user-centered design of healthcare informatics deserves more than simple analysis.
(Work) is an action (called a method in computer languages, a verb in human languages). Actions apply to objects as proven by their final state, minus their initial state. In other words, objects remain in one location, unless they are subject to Work, whereby they demonstrate a different final state.
For example, when a surgeon makes an incision, a scalpel is moved along an individual patient at precisely the correct anatomical landmark until it stops moving. The result of this incision can be called a Task. It will have been preceded by other tasks (possibly the work of other collaborators)—such as scrubbing or prepping—and followed by still other tasks—such as suctioning and suturing. These tasks all fit into a Task Flow that describes the sequence of tasks that individuals make as they treat their patients.
Therefore, we have developed an equation to accurately capture and discover data upon which to build a healthcare informatics system based upon actual clinical practice. This equation of a string of written-language variables may look something akin to the following:
(Healthcare Professionals) • (Work) • (Patients)
=
(individualIdentifier • department • subWorkClass • workClass)
•
(action • object1 • conjuction1 • object2 • conjuction2)
•
(predicate)
or
Respiratory Therapy Certified Respiratory Therapists Nebulize Medications With Nebulizers To Patients.
To those who work in the field of healthcare, the above string of variables submitted into the data structure may be recognizable as a routine task. This task can now be understood both by humans and by computers alike.
Therefore, we have successfully analyzed three classes that describe Healthcare: (Healthcare Professionals), (Work) and (Patients); these classes will contain the information that will be compiled to give us the end-user criteria upon which to build a user-centered healthcare informatics system.
Next, since end-users must still interact with their computers to submit information to be studied, we must further investigate human/computer communication techniques.
Researchers can record the research into these classes onto a napkin, or even in a spreadsheet—however, we should give ourselves lots of room to expand and explore. Therefore, let's begin by recording the information that we attain from end-users into a database.
We know that this information will be stored within the aforementioned three containers, but the containers should not limit the need to expand the data held within. Therefore, we will setup three scalable database structures that retain information, and will not limit the potential to interact with one another later on.
This first class, (Healthcare Professionals), comprising doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, and the like, must posses the ability to hold pertinent instantiated information regarding individuals who administer the healthcare. The third class, (Patients), will hold instantiated information regarding individuals who receive the care; this information is the patients' records. (Instantiation within these classes manifests as mere attributes to their objects, like adjectives describe their nouns.)
However, the interaction between these two classes—the class entitled (Work)—requires a bit more investigation. Describing (Work) for the purpose of user-centered design of healthcare informatics deserves more than simple analysis.
(Work) is an action (called a method in computer languages, a verb in human languages). Actions apply to objects as proven by their final state, minus their initial state. In other words, objects remain in one location, unless they are subject to Work, whereby they demonstrate a different final state.
For example, when a surgeon makes an incision, a scalpel is moved along an individual patient at precisely the correct anatomical landmark until it stops moving. The result of this incision can be called a Task. It will have been preceded by other tasks (possibly the work of other collaborators)—such as scrubbing or prepping—and followed by still other tasks—such as suctioning and suturing. These tasks all fit into a Task Flow that describes the sequence of tasks that individuals make as they treat their patients.
Therefore, we have developed an equation to accurately capture and discover data upon which to build a healthcare informatics system based upon actual clinical practice. This equation of a string of written-language variables may look something akin to the following:
(Healthcare Professionals) • (Work) • (Patients)
=
(individualIdentifier • department • subWorkClass • workClass)
•
(action • object1 • conjuction1 • object2 • conjuction2)
•
(predicate)
or
Respiratory Therapy Certified Respiratory Therapists Nebulize Medications With Nebulizers To Patients.
To those who work in the field of healthcare, the above string of variables submitted into the data structure may be recognizable as a routine task. This task can now be understood both by humans and by computers alike.
Therefore, we have successfully analyzed three classes that describe Healthcare: (Healthcare Professionals), (Work) and (Patients); these classes will contain the information that will be compiled to give us the end-user criteria upon which to build a user-centered healthcare informatics system.
Next, since end-users must still interact with their computers to submit information to be studied, we must further investigate human/computer communication techniques.
#7. This Thing Called "Healthcare".
So let's find out if Healthcare = 1/Crisis.
Again, we do not force any solution, but further breakdown our terms into their lowest common denominators so that we can arrive at an accurate, reproducible, scientific solution.
To do this we first investigate the term Healthcare to determine exactly what Healthcare is, in objective terms—that all (or most) can agree on.
Almost all can agree that healthcare is given by a person and received by a person (although those two classes are not limited by "people", since some may see that veterinarians also provide healthcare; nevertheless, let's continue).
Therefore, two classes of individuals exist within the definition of Healthcare: Those Healthcare Professionals who give Healthcare, and those Patients who receive it. Those who give healthcare comprise, doctors, nurses, dentists, respiratory therapists, Certified Nurse Assistants, and others. Those who receive healthcare comprise patients, unless otherwise added to the class.
Moreover, a transaction takes place between these two individual classes; we can call this transaction Work.
Therefore,
(Healthcare Professionals) • (Work) • (Patients) = 1/Crisis
This exploded view of the problem set starts to look more like variables that a computer might be able to compile.
(I will not investigate the term Crisis so that it fits into the equation—that mission can be your job, should you decide to accept it.)
Again, we do not force any solution, but further breakdown our terms into their lowest common denominators so that we can arrive at an accurate, reproducible, scientific solution.
To do this we first investigate the term Healthcare to determine exactly what Healthcare is, in objective terms—that all (or most) can agree on.
Almost all can agree that healthcare is given by a person and received by a person (although those two classes are not limited by "people", since some may see that veterinarians also provide healthcare; nevertheless, let's continue).
Therefore, two classes of individuals exist within the definition of Healthcare: Those Healthcare Professionals who give Healthcare, and those Patients who receive it. Those who give healthcare comprise, doctors, nurses, dentists, respiratory therapists, Certified Nurse Assistants, and others. Those who receive healthcare comprise patients, unless otherwise added to the class.
Moreover, a transaction takes place between these two individual classes; we can call this transaction Work.
Therefore,
(Healthcare Professionals) • (Work) • (Patients) = 1/Crisis
This exploded view of the problem set starts to look more like variables that a computer might be able to compile.
(I will not investigate the term Crisis so that it fits into the equation—that mission can be your job, should you decide to accept it.)
#6. The Science of Healthcare Crisis.
Now this step requires a leap of faith, so humor me for a moment.
We have determined that the term Healthcare Crisis is meaningful to humans, since it is the basis for the creation of Healthcare Reform solutions by humans (which implies that Healthcare Crisis must be a problem for some), but that the term itself is subjective and worthless to a computer. Since we are dealing with human/computer interaction—and the computer's ability is limited by the people who create it, we must find common ground between the human end-users, and the tool that is the computer system.
So, if the term Healthcare Crisis is subjective and we need objectivity, we borrow an object.
Therefore:
Healthcare Crisis = 1
There.
We have successfully objectified the term, and haven't hurt anyone in the process.
Next, we proceed to isolate these terms:
Healthcare = 1/Crisis
We see that Healthcare is the reciprocal of Crisis
This statement implies that as Healthcare increases, Crisis decreases, and visa versa. This can actually mean many things, but is it true?
I claim it is.
However, you may claim this to be absolute malarkey—therefore, those two opposing opinions still remain to be proven right or wrong by virtue of the fact that they are merely opinions without a factual evidence base.
Therefore, the basis for our research project has been established—entirely on a leap of faith and the willingness to further investigate that which is the foundation for science itself.
We have determined that the term Healthcare Crisis is meaningful to humans, since it is the basis for the creation of Healthcare Reform solutions by humans (which implies that Healthcare Crisis must be a problem for some), but that the term itself is subjective and worthless to a computer. Since we are dealing with human/computer interaction—and the computer's ability is limited by the people who create it, we must find common ground between the human end-users, and the tool that is the computer system.
So, if the term Healthcare Crisis is subjective and we need objectivity, we borrow an object.
Therefore:
Healthcare Crisis = 1
There.
We have successfully objectified the term, and haven't hurt anyone in the process.
Next, we proceed to isolate these terms:
Healthcare = 1/Crisis
We see that Healthcare is the reciprocal of Crisis
This statement implies that as Healthcare increases, Crisis decreases, and visa versa. This can actually mean many things, but is it true?
I claim it is.
However, you may claim this to be absolute malarkey—therefore, those two opposing opinions still remain to be proven right or wrong by virtue of the fact that they are merely opinions without a factual evidence base.
Therefore, the basis for our research project has been established—entirely on a leap of faith and the willingness to further investigate that which is the foundation for science itself.
#5. Organization, or Confusion, Starts At The Top.
Much recent press has been given to the subjective terms healthcare debate, healthcare crisis, and healthcare reform; nevertheless, we need data that can be input to a computer, not a ballot box.
Although we have not yet established what we will be studying, we do know that organization of research follows a format. That format first finds a Goal, then finds Objectives, Tasks within those objectives, and a Task Flow—a series in which the tasks follow to meet their objectives. (We can develop this organization further as we progress through this logic.) Therefore, we know that whatever we do, our research will follow a format that fits into the guidelines that follow the overall Goal.
Furthermore, we earlier claimed that we are concerned with the problem (not the solution) of the Healthcare Crisis—and determined that the term was subjective, means different things to different people, and some even claim that no crisis exists at all.
Therefore, we have found an opinion.
Opinions spur research into the facts.
So, let's get started defining Healthcare Crisis in objective terms that a computer can compile; we can employ the following method, although other ways to achieve this Goal may coexist. (Please bear with me on this one—this may not seem relevant at the moment, so you will have to trust me for now.)
Although we have not yet established what we will be studying, we do know that organization of research follows a format. That format first finds a Goal, then finds Objectives, Tasks within those objectives, and a Task Flow—a series in which the tasks follow to meet their objectives. (We can develop this organization further as we progress through this logic.) Therefore, we know that whatever we do, our research will follow a format that fits into the guidelines that follow the overall Goal.
Furthermore, we earlier claimed that we are concerned with the problem (not the solution) of the Healthcare Crisis—and determined that the term was subjective, means different things to different people, and some even claim that no crisis exists at all.
Therefore, we have found an opinion.
Opinions spur research into the facts.
So, let's get started defining Healthcare Crisis in objective terms that a computer can compile; we can employ the following method, although other ways to achieve this Goal may coexist. (Please bear with me on this one—this may not seem relevant at the moment, so you will have to trust me for now.)
#4. Problem Identification. Not Solution Identification.
Albert Einstein is attributed with stating that A perfection of means, and confusion of aims, seems to be our main problem. If you agree, then you will also agree that we must accurately describe our problem in the most accurate of terms, instead of forcing a solution without an evidence-base, thereby running a risk that we force a solution that may not be agreeable to everyone.
Moreover, since we are dealing with a computer that compiles input into output, we must be unbiased and accurate about our input terms if we are to reap the benefits of an accurate, unbiased output of user-data upon which to base user-centered healthcare informatics design critia.
So, we are faced with the problem of accurately describing the problem: This is where most people drop out.
Therefore, our scientific research will begin with identifying the problem of healthcare crisis, rather than focusing on the solution of healthcare reform.
Moreover, since we are dealing with a computer that compiles input into output, we must be unbiased and accurate about our input terms if we are to reap the benefits of an accurate, unbiased output of user-data upon which to base user-centered healthcare informatics design critia.
So, we are faced with the problem of accurately describing the problem: This is where most people drop out.
Therefore, our scientific research will begin with identifying the problem of healthcare crisis, rather than focusing on the solution of healthcare reform.
#3. Science Is Not An Opinion.
If political opinions support at least two sides, scientific facts do not. In fact, when an opinion presents in a field of science, that opinion can only exist as an opportunity to further investigate subsequent facts, since the factual answers to these questions almost always give rise to even more questions. These questions that develop as the result of knowledge attained is often referred to as the scientific method. Only one omnipresent scientific method is known to exist; however many varied opinions coexist, especially in politics.
Therefore, when creating a scientific user-centered healthcare informatics system, we will be interested in researching and publishing factual information, while simultaneously employing the existence of any identified opinion as an opportunity to further research.
Therefore, when creating a scientific user-centered healthcare informatics system, we will be interested in researching and publishing factual information, while simultaneously employing the existence of any identified opinion as an opportunity to further research.
#2 Human Behavior: The Object/Subject of Study
If we are to study humans to build a computer system that serves their behavior, it is their behavior that we must study. Studying human behavior—their actions—is the basis for usability science, since usability implies "use"—an action. Those who do not use the information system are neither qualified to be studied, nor to invoke their untested solutions onto those who are—in this case, doctors, nurses, allied professionals, and the like.
Nevertheless, clearly most doctors, nurses, and allied professionals are not qualified to design a computerized informatics system, at least one that is based on their personal needs, devoid of their biased wants.
Therefore, we must study the actions of the individuals who submit care to others so that we can cater to their needs. We will not be concerned with criteria other than those actions, and those dynamic needs.
As a side note: Some of you may be programmers skilled in object-oriented languages, such as Ruby. For the purpose of this study these languages may be best employed if methods are prioritized over their objects, not visa versa; the point may seem moot, and theoretical to some, but you may come to agree with the point as it develops. For now, I will just mention it.
We can now continue to setup our study of human behavior, beginning with the broadest possible scope, and ending with study of the minutia of human behavior.
Nevertheless, clearly most doctors, nurses, and allied professionals are not qualified to design a computerized informatics system, at least one that is based on their personal needs, devoid of their biased wants.
Therefore, we must study the actions of the individuals who submit care to others so that we can cater to their needs. We will not be concerned with criteria other than those actions, and those dynamic needs.
As a side note: Some of you may be programmers skilled in object-oriented languages, such as Ruby. For the purpose of this study these languages may be best employed if methods are prioritized over their objects, not visa versa; the point may seem moot, and theoretical to some, but you may come to agree with the point as it develops. For now, I will just mention it.
We can now continue to setup our study of human behavior, beginning with the broadest possible scope, and ending with study of the minutia of human behavior.
#1. Computers Will Do Anything You Program Them To Do
The constraint of any computerized information system is that of the humans, not of the computers. Computers are merely the tools of humans, not visa-versa. Therefore, we must deduct that to design a world-classed healthcare informatics system to best serve the needs of healthcare (and thereby, humanity) we must first study the constraints of the humans, not the constraints of the computers.
All logic can be programmed into a computer; "it will never work" is not possible. However, the humans who program logic into computers must first have the logic that renders a logical system. Therefore, the first objective to creating a logical healthcare information management system is to provide accurate guidelines to those who design and develop these systems.
If a systematic method to accurately study that which renders logical guidelines for healthcare informatics systems is to be established—we need to setup the study, and that which renders guidelines for healthcare informatics systems is the study of the humans involved with the system; we need only rudimentary knowledge of computers.
All logic can be programmed into a computer; "it will never work" is not possible. However, the humans who program logic into computers must first have the logic that renders a logical system. Therefore, the first objective to creating a logical healthcare information management system is to provide accurate guidelines to those who design and develop these systems.
If a systematic method to accurately study that which renders logical guidelines for healthcare informatics systems is to be established—we need to setup the study, and that which renders guidelines for healthcare informatics systems is the study of the humans involved with the system; we need only rudimentary knowledge of computers.
Welcome To User-Centered Design for Healthcare Informatics
The purpose of this blog is to present a forum to exchange information regarding the design and development of a science-based, user-centered healthcare informatics system that is free from political constraints. This blog is to share information for the betterment of healthcare informatics, to cross-pollinate ideas, and to establish a forum of willing participants to create an information structure to serve humanity, to better the healthcare environment, and to advance the human experience in general.
This blog is not allied with any government, corporation, political party, or political ideology, has no opinions on outside issues—it's sole purpose is to provide scientific information to those who desire to offer an efficient human-computer experience to people who care for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
