Table 4 Joint display capability
Capability: Possibilities presented by the complex intervention (Workability & Integration) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | AR (IR) | SrA | ↑↓ | LOS (ΔLOS) | Qualitative data |
Hospital 1 | 75% (10%) | 88% | ↑17 ↓5 | (6.0d) (−3.1d) | • CP implemented before project, project used to update and adapt • CP integrated in electronic patient record • No effect on workload • Standardization, monitoring mentioned as standard ways of working |
Hospital 2 | 65% (22%) | 60% | ↑18 ↓3 | 8.2d (− 4.2) | • CP implemented during project • CP not integrated in patient record, but integrated in work processes • Initial increase in workload • Delicate process to reach consensus |
Hospital 8 | 47% (− 13%) | 71% | ↑6 ↓9 | 10.3d (− 4.4) | • No CP implemented • Local protocol not integrated in the patient record • Using protocol decreases workload • Perioperative care is unstructured, depending on individual preferences |
Hospital 9 | 54% (−3%) | 72% | ↑13 ↓6 | 10.2d (2.1d) | • CP partly implemented during project, not integrated in patient record • No effect on workload • Ambivalent perception of standardization: clarity versus ‘cook book medicine’ and loss of autonomy |
Hospital 10 | 64% (−5%) | 64% | ↑7 ↓8 | 18.8d (1.8) | • CP implemented during project • CP integrated in (paper based) patient record • Decrease in workload • Standardization perceived as positive providing clarity and safety |