This paper examines key concepts from the AHRQ Workflow Assessment for Health IT Toolkit and applies them to a real-world case study involving FluAlert, a computerized influenza vaccination alert system. The paper defines workflows as sequences of mental and physical tasks, emphasizes workflow analysis as a foundation for process improvement, and discusses common tools such as mapping, flowcharts, and stakeholder interviews. It then summarizes findings from a qualitative study on pediatric providers' barriers to flu vaccine delivery, critiques the organizational deficiencies revealed, and reflects on how technology-driven workflow changes must be treated as ongoing, living processes rather than static documents.
The AHRQ Workflow Assessment for Health IT Toolkit introduces several important concepts for understanding how work is performed in healthcare settings. The first and most foundational is that a workflow is a "sequence of mental and physical tasks." This definition is key to understanding everything else that follows. A workflow describes how work is done — given a problem, it outlines how that problem is solved. Because of this, the workflow is central to process improvement. By understanding how work is currently being performed, it becomes easier to identify how that process can be improved to achieve a desired outcome, whether that outcome is measured by time, quality, or another metric.
A second important insight is that workflows must be subject to ongoing analysis, particularly when a fault or inefficiency is occurring. If something is amiss, the workflow should be examined to locate where it can be repaired. The AHRQ toolkit provides a number of tools for conducting this analysis. Workflow analysis, in turn, provides the basis for identifying areas of waste — such as inefficient steps or needless processes — that can then be eliminated or restructured.
A third insight drawn from the toolkit is the importance of visualizing the various workflows that are common within a healthcare organization. Having a clear sense of the major operational issues and what a standard workflow looks like is critical for effective management and improvement. Several techniques are available for analyzing workflows, including interviewing the staff members who use the system, conducting usability testing, mapping existing workflows, and creating flowcharts.
These same techniques can also be applied to evaluate proposed workflows before they are implemented. For example, a proposed workflow can be mapped out and compared directly with the existing one to verify that it represents a genuine improvement. This kind of prospective analysis helps organizations avoid investing in changes that do not deliver meaningful gains.
Birmingham et al. (2011) examined some of the issues impeding flu shot delivery in pediatric settings. Specifically, the study explored "pediatric providers' perceived barriers to influenza vaccine delivery." The research was conducted across four focus groups and five individual interviews. These sessions identified several distinct barriers to vaccine delivery. Among them — remarkably — was providers simply forgetting to administer the vaccine and failing to document the interaction adequately. Time shortages and inadequate staffing were also identified as significant obstacles. In general, the barriers pointed to organizational and managerial deficiencies in how some practices were being run.
The study's conclusion was that these barriers were likely difficult to overcome through behavioral change alone, and that an automated alert system — FluAlert — could help address them. The alert would trigger early in a patient visit, assess the patient's vaccination status, and generate appropriate documentation automatically. The automation of documentation is a reasonable and welcome improvement; however, the underlying finding — that clinical providers needed an electronic prompt to remember to inquire about a basic preventive care measure — is striking. The paper's broader conclusion is that there is a clear market need for a tool like FluAlert in practices where these gaps exist.
"Author critiques FluAlert findings against own organization"
"Technology as a driver of continuous workflow updates"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.