Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 2003; 42(04): 345-352
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634228
Original article
Schattauer GmbH

Trusting the Record

K. Clarke
1   Department of Computing, Lancaster University, UK
,
M. Hartswood
2   Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems, Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK
,
R. Procter
2   Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems, Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK
,
M. Rouncefield
1   Department of Computing, Lancaster University, UK
,
R. Slack
2   Institute for Communicating and Collaborative Systems, Division of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
08 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objectives: This paper aims to contribute to a longstanding interest in documents and paperwork in healthcare work through an examination of everyday work with patient records in a clinic.

Methods: An ethnographic study of record keeping practices in a deliberate self harm clinic was conducted to consider the role that document work plays in the development of trust in the routine social interactions of a working division of labor.

Results and conclusions: Issues of trust are seen to play central roles within the complexities of organizational working and some consequent implications for the deployment and use of electronic medical record systems are considered.

Keywords

Trust - paperwork - affordances - electronic medical records
 

  • References

  • 1 Berg M, Bowker G. The multiple bodies of the medical record, towards a sociology of an artifact. Sociological Quarterly 1997; 38: 511-35.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Heath C, Luff P. Documents and Professional Practice:‘bad’ organizational reasons for ‘good’ clinical records. Proceedings of CSCW’96. 1996: 354-62.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hertzum M. Six roles of documents in professional’s work. Proceedings of ECSCW’99. 1999: 41-60.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Star SL, Griesemer JR. Institutional Ecology, ‘translations’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 1989; 19: 387-420.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Komito L. Paper ‘work’ and electronic files: defending professional practice. Journal of Information Technology. 1998 13: December 1998.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Garfinkel H. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 1967
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Zimmerman D. Record keeping and the intake process in a public welfare organization. In: Wheeler S. editor. On record, files and dossiers in American Life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1971
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Yates J. Control through communication, the rise of system in American management. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press; 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Hughes J, King V, Mariani J, Rodden T, Twidale M. Paperwork and its lessons for database systems: an initial assessment. In: Shapiro D, Tauber M, Traunmuller R. editors. The design of computer supported cooperative work and groupware systems. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1996. pp. 43-66.
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Fitzpatrick G. Understanding the paper record in practice, implications for EHRs. Proceedings of HIC’2000. 2000
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gambetta D. editor. Trust, making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1990. Available online at www.sociology. ox.ac.uk/trustbook.html
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Luhmann N. Trust and power. Chichester: Wiley; 1979
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Fukuyama F. Trust, the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. London: Penguin; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Kipnis D. Trust and Technology. In: Kramer R, Tyler T. editors. Trust in organizations, frontiers of theory and research. London: Sage; 1996. pp. 39-50.
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Axelrod R. Complexity of cooperation, agent based models of competition and collaboration. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Luhmann N. Familiarity, confidence, trust, problems and alternatives. In: Gambetta D. editor. Trust, making and breaking cooperative relations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell; 1990. Available online at www.sociology.ox.ac.uk/trustbook.html
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Strathern M. Audit cultures, anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy. London: Routledge; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Hughes J, King V, Rodden T, Andersen H. Moving out of the control room: ethnography in system design. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’94). 1994: 429-38.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Goffman E. Interaction ritual, essays on face to face behavior. New York: Pantheon Books; 1982
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Goodwin C. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 1994; 96: 606-33.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Ellingsen G, Monterio E. A patchwork planet: The heterogeneity of electronic patient record systems in hospitals. Proceedings of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS’2000) Uddevalla: 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Dick RS, Steen EB, Detmer DE. editors. The Computer-based patient record, an essential technology for health care. Revised ed. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Pories W. Is the medical record dangerous to our health?. North Carolina Medical Journal, 1990; 51: 47-55.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Berg M. Rationalizing medical work, decision support techniques and medical practices. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1997
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Hartswood M, Procter R, Rouncefield M, Sharpe M. Making a case in medical work, implications for the electronic medical record. Comp Supp Coop Work; forthcoming.
    Google Scholar