IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v75y2012i12p2378-2385.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Benefit or burden? A sociotechnical analysis of diagnostic computer kiosks in four California hospital emergency departments

Author

Listed:
  • Ackerman, Sara L.
  • Tebb, Kathleen
  • Stein, John C.
  • Frazee, Bradley W.
  • Hendey, Gregory W.
  • Schmidt, Laura A.
  • Gonzales, Ralph

Abstract

High expectations for new technologies coexist with wide variability in the actual adoption and impact of information technology (IT) projects in clinical settings, and the frequent failure to incorporate otherwise “successful” projects into routine practice. This paper draws on actor–network theory to present an in-depth, sociotechnical analysis of one such project – a computer kiosk designed to diagnose and expedite treatment of urinary tract infections (UTI) in adult women. Research at a hospital urgent care clinic demonstrated the kiosk program's effectiveness at diagnosing UTI and reducing patient wait times, and the kiosk was subsequently adopted by the clinic for routine patient care. However, a study promoting the adoption of the device at emergency departments (ED) was characterized by persistent staff resistance and lower-than-expected patient eligibility for kiosk-assisted care. The device was ultimately abandoned at all but one of the new sites. Observations and interviews with ED staff and the design/research team were conducted at four California EDs between April and July 2011 and point to conflicting understandings of evidence for the device's usefulness and reasons for its (non)adoption. The kiosk program's designers had attempted to “rationalize” medical work by embedding a formal representation of triage practices in the kiosk's software. However, the kiosk's “network” failed to stabilize as it encountered different patient populations, institutional politics, and the complex, pragmatic aspects of ED work at each site. The results of this evaluation challenge the persistent myth that a priori qualities and meanings inhere in technology regardless of context. The design and deployment of new IT projects in complex medical settings would benefit from empirically informed understandings of, and responses to, the contingent properties of human–technology relations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ackerman, Sara L. & Tebb, Kathleen & Stein, John C. & Frazee, Bradley W. & Hendey, Gregory W. & Schmidt, Laura A. & Gonzales, Ralph, 2012. "Benefit or burden? A sociotechnical analysis of diagnostic computer kiosks in four California hospital emergency departments," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2378-2385.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:12:p:2378-2385
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953612006764
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.013?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wanda J. Orlikowski & C. Suzanne Iacono, 2001. "Research Commentary: Desperately Seeking the “IT” in IT Research—A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 121-134, June.
    2. Goldenberg, Maya J., 2006. "On evidence and evidence-based medicine: Lessons from the philosophy of science," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(11), pages 2621-2632, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Tilson & Kalle Lyytinen & Carsten Sørensen, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 748-759, December.
    2. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4907 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Sara Moussawi & Marios Koufaris & Raquel Benbunan-Fich, 2021. "How perceptions of intelligence and anthropomorphism affect adoption of personal intelligent agents," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(2), pages 343-364, June.
    4. Sarv Devaraj & Ming Fan & Rajiv Kohli, 2002. "Antecedents of B2C Channel Satisfaction and Preference: Validating e-Commerce Metrics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 13(3), pages 316-333, September.
    5. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    6. Cavanagh, Alice & Shamsheri, Tahmina & Shen, Katrina & Gaber, Jessica & Liauw, Jessica & Vanstone, Meredith & Kouyoumdjian, Fiona, 2022. "Lived experiences of pregnancy and prison through a reproductive justice lens: A qualitative meta-synthesis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(C).
    7. Gebauer, Judith & Mahoney, Joseph T., 2013. "Joining Supply and Demand Conditions of IT Enabled Change: Toward an Economic Theory of Inter-firm Modulation," Working Papers 13-0100, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    8. Xin Xu & Viswanath Venkatesh & Kar Yan Tam & Se-Joon Hong, 2010. "Model of Migration and Use of Platforms: Role of Hierarchy, Current Generation, and Complementarities in Consumer Settings," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(8), pages 1304-1323, August.
    9. Michael Breward & Khaled Hassanein & Milena Head, 2017. "Understanding Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Controversial Information Technologies: A Contextualization Approach," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(4), pages 760-774, December.
    10. Lange, Carola, 2005. "Ein Bezugsrahmen zur Beschreibung von Forschungsgegenständen und -methoden in Wirtschaftsinformatik und Information Systems," ICB Research Reports 1, University Duisburg-Essen, Institute for Computer Science and Business Information Systems (ICB).
    11. Roman Beck & Sven Weber & Robert Wayne Gregory, 2013. "Theory-generating design science research," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 15(4), pages 637-651, September.
    12. Yuxiang Zhao & Qinghua Zhu, 2014. "Evaluation on crowdsourcing research: Current status and future direction," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 417-434, July.
    13. Nigam, Amit, 2012. "Changing health care quality paradigms: The rise of clinical guidelines and quality measures in American medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(11), pages 1933-1937.
    14. Hunt, Joanne Elizabeth, 2022. "Making space for disability studies within a structurally competent medical curriculum: Reflections on Long Covid," SocArXiv p9qyk, Center for Open Science.
    15. Kris Hoang & Steven E. Salterio & Jim Sylph, 2018. "Barriers to Transferring Auditing Research to Standard Setters," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(3), pages 427-452, September.
    16. Matthew Tieu & Michael Lawless & Sarah C. Hunter & Maria Alejandra Pinero de Plaza & Francis Darko & Alexandra Mudd & Lalit Yadav & Alison Kitson, 2023. "Wicked problems in a post-truth political economy: a dilemma for knowledge translation," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Guido Schryen, 2010. "Preserving Knowledge on IS Business Value," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 2(4), pages 233-244, August.
    18. Amrit Tiwana & Benn Konsynski & Ashley A. Bush, 2010. "Research Commentary ---Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 675-687, December.
    19. François-Xavier de Vaujany & Nathalie Mitev & Matthew Smith & Isabelle Walsh, 2017. "Renewing Literature Reviews in MIS Research? A Critical Realist Approach," Working Papers hal-01648133, HAL.
    20. Susan V. Scott & Geoff Walsham, 2005. "Reconceptualizing and Managing Reputation Risk in the Knowledge Economy: Toward Reputable Action," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 308-322, June.
    21. Hart O. Awa & Ojiabo Ukoha & Best C. Eke, 2016. "Adoption of emerging ICTs: The role of actors in a social network," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1259879-125, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:12:p:2378-2385. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.