Uploaded byfritzekisur
16 views

Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones

Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones

Embed presentation

Download to read offline
Visit https://ebookultra.com to download the full version and explore more ebooks Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones _____ Click the link below to download _____ https://ebookultra.com/download/design-for-care- innovating-healthcare-experience-1st-edition-edition- peter-jones/ Explore and download more ebooks at ebookultra.com
Here are some suggested products you might be interested in. Click the link to download Architecture and Movement The Dynamic Experience of Buildings and Landscapes 1. publ. Edition Peter Blundell Jones https://ebookultra.com/download/architecture-and-movement-the-dynamic- experience-of-buildings-and-landscapes-1-publ-edition-peter-blundell- jones/ Future Healthcare Design 1st Edition Sumita Singha https://ebookultra.com/download/future-healthcare-design-1st-edition- sumita-singha/ Storytelling for User Experience Crafting Stories for Better Design 1st Edition Whitney Quesenbery https://ebookultra.com/download/storytelling-for-user-experience- crafting-stories-for-better-design-1st-edition-whitney-quesenbery/ Mould Design Guide 1st Edition Jones https://ebookultra.com/download/mould-design-guide-1st-edition-jones/
Disinfection in Healthcare 3rd Edition Peter Hoffman https://ebookultra.com/download/disinfection-in-healthcare-3rd- edition-peter-hoffman/ Practice Professional Development Planning A Guide For Primary Care Radcliffe Primary Care 1st Edition Peter Wilcock https://ebookultra.com/download/practice-professional-development- planning-a-guide-for-primary-care-radcliffe-primary-care-1st-edition- peter-wilcock/ Mobile Interaction Design Matt Jones https://ebookultra.com/download/mobile-interaction-design-matt-jones/ Critical Care 1st Edition Peter Papadakos https://ebookultra.com/download/critical-care-1st-edition-peter- papadakos/ Paediatric Intensive Care 1st Edition Peter Barry https://ebookultra.com/download/paediatric-intensive-care-1st-edition- peter-barry/
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones Digital Instant Download Author(s): Peter Jones ISBN(s): 9781933820231, 1933820233 Edition: 1st Edition File Details: PDF, 5.42 MB Year: 2013 Language: english
Rosenfeld Media Brooklyn, New York Peter H. Jones Design for Care Innovating Healthcare Experience
Design for Care: Innovating Healthcare Experience By Peter H. Jones Rosenfeld Media, LLC 457 Third Street, #4R Brooklyn, New York 11215 USA On the Web: www.rosenfeldmedia.com Please send errors to: errata@rosenfeldmedia.com Publisher: Louis Rosenfeld Developmental Editor: JoAnn Simony Interior Layout Tech: Danielle Foster Cover Design: The Heads of State Indexer: Nancy Guenther Proofreader: Kathy Brock Artwork Designer: James Caldwell, 418QE © 2013 Peter H. Jones All Rights Reserved ISBN: 1-933820-23-3 ISBN-13: 978-1-933820-23-1 LCCN: 2012950698 Printed and bound in the United States of America
Dedication To Patricia, my own favorite writer, who kept me healthy while writing for three years To my mother, Betsy, whose courage and insight in her recent passing from a rare cancer gives me empathy for the personhood of every patient And to my father, Hayward, whose perpetual resilience shines through after surviving two cancers and living life well
iv How to Use This Book Design for Care fuses design practice, systems thinking, and practi- cal healthcare research to help designers create innovative and effective responses to emerging and unforeseen problems. It covers design practices and methods for innovation in patient-centered healthcare services. Design for Care offers best and next practices, and industrial-strength meth- ods from practicing designers and design researchers in the field. Case studies illustrate current health design projects from leading firms, ser- vices, and institutions. Design methods and their applications illustrate how design makes a difference in healthcare today. My hope is that you will adapt the lessons, methods, and insights in this book to a product, organization, or service system in your own work. Who Should Read This Book? Design for Care was written for three audiences: designers and design researchers in healthcare fields; healthcare professionals and clinical prac- tice leaders; and service, product, and innovation managers in companies serving healthcare. Healthcare is complex, and learning even one vertical slice of a vast field is a significant undertaking. Learning and working across a second sector is a career challenge. Working effectively across sectors is unheard of. Design- ers, researchers, and practitioners across all three audiences typically work within a single sector—for a hospital, an information technology (IT) com- pany, a medical products company, or a service provider. This book aims to inform design professionals across sectors (and design disciplines) and to contribute to their ability to design for the continuous life cycle of patient- centered service experiences. To ensure quality and manage costs across the whole system, a holistic view of healthcare and design is necessary. For service designers, product, and innovation managers, I cover the most compelling information and service opportunities in healthcare with case studies and informed research. There are few guides for product managers in healthcare. Although this book does not specifically focus on product and project management, it weaves together many missing pieces overlooked in product and service innovation. Most care providers work in one sector as well, deeply focused in a practice and an organization. This book helps inform clinical leaders of innovation methods, and encourages their understanding of the value of design think- ing in health services, informatics, and organizational practice. Effective
How to Use This Book v and ethical system design is not just making things work better for end users. Design leadership requires a collaboration at the practice level to contribute organizationally and systemically. I introduce health leaders to design and systems thinking approaches to help them innovate patient- centered service. With the increased focus on improving the user experience in health websites and services, many designers new to the healthcare field will be learning about these users while on the job. Design for Care explores cases and methods for bettering human experience on both sides of the care expe- rience, for both the patient and the care providers. It speaks to both new and experienced practitioners, and should be especially useful for those in tran- sition between fields. For healthcare providers and those already managing projects “inside the system,” adaptation of successful methods and patterns is encouraged between different cases and uses. What’s in This Book? Part I: Rethinking Care and Its Consumers The three chapters in Part I focus on the healthcare consumer. Chapter 1: Design as Caregiving presents a perspective on design as a way to provide care and addresses the problem of the fragmentation of design practice and engagement across the different healthcare sectors. Chapter 2: Co-creating Care focuses on design for health information seeking as a way of co-creating value in immediate care situations. Chapter 3: Seeking Health examines per- sonal health decision making. Part II: Rethinking Patients The two chapters in Part II make the transition from health seeker in a con- sumer context to a patient-oriented perspective. Chapter 4: Design for Patient Agency presents agency and connectivity as alternative design fac- tors to balance the traditional healthcare default perspective of patiency, which often treats patients as passive participants in their own care process. Chapter 5: Patient-Centered Service Design presents a systems approach to service design, and attempts to resolve differing concepts found across health service approaches. Human-centered approaches to service design focus on the primacy of patient experience, improving the touchpoints of care along the continuum of service responsibility.
vi How to Use This Book Part III: Rethinking Care Systems The four chapters in Part III look at care-centered service design in the com- plex systems of clinical healthcare and information-based work practices. Chapter 6: Design at the Point of Care is a service design approach to clinical decision making, medical education, and the four stages of clinical service design. The focus on medical education connects physician training, clinical work, and the care organization as designable services in a whole system. Chapter 7: Designing Healthy Information Technology looks at health IT as both innovation and system infrastructure at both the enter- prise and practice levels. Lessons learned from electronic medical records and meaningful use provide a context for designing improved IT in clinical practice. Chapter 8: Systemic Design for Healthcare Innovation devel- ops a systems thinking approach to designing service and organizational innovation in healthcare. Chapter 9: Designing Healthcare Futures pres- ents methods and models for reimagining healthcare service from near- and long-term future perspectives, to enable strategic and socially responsive innovation. What Comes with This Book? You’ll find additional content in this book’s companion websites (http://designforcare.com and www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/ design-for-care/). Its diagrams and other illustrations are available under a Creative Commons license (when possible) for you to download and include in your own presentations. You can find these on Flickr at www.flickr.com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/sets/.
vii Frequently Asked Questions Who are the stakeholders for this book? The book is written to ultimately help health seekers—the patients and peo- ple who seek information, health services, and care from today’s fragmented healthcare systems. We all rely on healthcare at some point, for ourselves and those we care for; therefore, everyone can be a stakeholder. “We” are the user experience and service designers in healthcare, care pro- viders improving healthcare service, and product and project managers in health industries. We are the ones who will ultimately employ design in healthcare transformation. Other stakeholders include design and medical educators, management of hospitals and companies providing healthcare applications, and policy makers. How do you resolve the different terminology used in different design disciplines? Throughout the book, references are made to concepts and terms that have distinct meanings in their own fields. Because the book presents a convergence of design methods and human research across the sectors of healthcare, a collision of perspectives is to be expected. The design disci- plines have variations in design practice, research methods, and artifacts that cannot be resolved in one book. Research and medicine are divided by discipline, method, and legacy. The intention of this book is to raise crucial issues of which designers should be aware. The common bond among all these disciplines is the compelling requirement to solve complex problems in effective and sustainable ways. See page 12. What is health seeking? The health seeker is any person aware of his or her motivation to improve his or her health, whether sick or not. Health seeking is the natural pursuit of one’s appropriate balance of well-being, the continuous moving toward what we call “normal” health. For some, normal is just not feeling any symptoms; for others, it may be achieving the physical performance of an Olympian. See page 15. What is Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0, and is there a difference? These designations are applied to coherent trends in Internet-enabled IT in healthcare and medical innovation. The implication of the release number
viii Frequently Asked Questions “2.0” signals consensus among IT vendors and innovators that a technol- ogy regime shift is being organized, similar to Web 2.0. Health 2.0 ranges from the conceptual shift in the management of patient care using online technology, to healthcare IT start-ups and Web services for health manage- ment. Medicine 2.0 was inspired by the shift in IT and data resources from academic medicine and biomedical sciences. See page 100. How are design and medicine alike? These two fields are similar in many ways. Both are performed as an expert- informed skilled practice that is learned by doing. And both are informed by observation and feedback, by evidence of their beneficial effects. Both dis- ciplines are motivated by a deep desire to help people manage and improve their lives, individually and culturally. Modern medicine is guided by sci- entific inquiry much more than design, but then designers and engineers in healthcare often have scientific backgrounds. In medicine, evidence of outcome is gathered by measures of health and mortality, controlled experi- ments, and validated in peer-reviewed research. For clinical practice and organizational change, however, validation is often based on the social proof of adoption in practice. Design interventions in healthcare are often assessed by the analysis of empirical evidence, but in few cases would exper- imental validation be appropriate for service or interaction design. Different evaluation methods are valid in their contexts, a proposition that may not yet be acceptable across healthcare fields. See Chapter 6. Why do you say “There is no user in healthcare”? The designation of “user” privileges the use of a particular system and its functions, which promotes a language of efficiency based on “user tasks.” It biases design toward optimizing for a specific set of use cases based on a strong representation of a primary user of IT. Healthcare is a huge social system with many participants and roles dedicated toward the recovery of individual and social health. Few of these roles actually require IT for their performance. A user-centered perspective risks isolating a single aspect of use and interaction, when nearly everything involves more than one of the primary participants: consumers, patients, and clinicians. If we take an empathic view, it becomes clear that users and even patients are names of impersonal convenience. The term health seeker is proposed as an unbiased way of understanding the person seeking care as a motivated actor making sense of a complicated system to achieve health goals. See page 13.
ix Contents How to Use This Book iv Frequently Asked Questions vii Foreword xiii Introduction xv Part I: Rethinking Care and Its Consumers Chapter 1 Design as Caregiving 7 Can Healthcare Innovate Itself? 8 Are There Users of Care? 12 A Caring Design Ethic 15 The Design Thinking Divide 17 Wicked Problems in Healthcare Design 21 Chapter 2 Co-creating Care 31 Elena’s Story: The Family Caregiver 32 Infocare 34 Health Information Design Is Personal 36 Health Search Behavior 39 Case Study: WebMD— Health Information Experience 42 Methods: Consumer Service Design Research 47 Chapter 3 Seeking Health 55 Elena’s Story: It Can Happen to Anyone 56 Information First Aid 57 Making Sense of Health Decision Making 60 Design for Consumer Health Decisions 65
x Contents Case Study: Healthwise Decision Aids— Personal Health Decision Support 69 Methods: Empathic and Values Design 73 Part II: Rethinking Patients 83 Chapter 4 Design for Patient Agency 87 Elena’s Story: A Personal Health Journey 88 Self-Care as Health Agency 89 Health 2.0: Everywhere and Empowering 100 Case Study: St. Michael’s Health Design Lab— Health Design for Self-Care 107 Methods: Tools for Agency 114 Chapter 5 Patient-Centered Service Design 123 Elena’s Story: Health Self-Service 124 Patient Experience in Health Service 124 Good Care Is a Moral Issue 128 Evidence-Based Service Design 136 Service Design for Care 140 Case Study: Patient-Centered Care Innovation 145 Methods: Design Research for Healthcare Services 152 Part III: Rethinking Care Systems 161 Chapter 6 Design at the Point of Care 167 Elena’s Story: Taking a Serious Turn 168 Better Practice Is Better Service 169 Designing Health Education 175
Contents xi Improving Clinical Decision Making 187 Case Study: IDEO Continuity of Care 196 Methods: Stakeholder Co-creation 200 Chapter 7 Designing Healthy Information Technology 207 Elena’s Story: Learning to Live With 208 Critical Design Opportunities 209 How to Innovate the EMR? 218 EMR Design for Clinical Work 223 Case Study: VistA—Why It Still Matters 234 EMR Design Process 240 Design Methods: Cognitive Engineering 242 Chapter 8 Systemic Design for Healthcare Innovation 247 Elena’s Story: A System Upgrade 248 Disruptive Transformation 249 Systemic Design in Healthcare Service 253 The Four Systems of Healthcare 258 Patient-Centric Design Values 264 Large-Scale Healthcare Innovation 266 Designing Inside the System 267 Understanding Problems as Systems 269 System-Level Innovation 275 Case Study: Mayo Mom Community Health Service 284 Design Methods for Systems Innovation 288
xii Contents Chapter 9 Designing Healthcare Futures 297 Elena’s Story: A Change of Heart 298 In the Adjacent Future 298 Mid-Future: Resolution of Critical Healthcare Problems 304 Longer-Term Healthcare Foresight 307 Future Roles for Healthcare Design Leadership 316 Innovation’s Adjacent Possible 325 Conclusion 326 References 327 Index 335 Acknowledgments 354 About the Author 356
xiii Foreword In 2012, my wife and I were partners on a cancer journey. She was diagnosed with stage IIIA breast cancer in December 2011, and the cycles of chemo- therapy, surgery, and radiation therapy filled the first seven months of 2012. As a clinician, I reviewed every order, every note, and every plan in her Beth Israel Deaconess online medical record. As a patient, she viewed everything written about her in her Beth Israel Deaconess PatientSite personal health record. I cannot imagine how care coordination, shared decision making, and communication would have been possible without ubiquitous patient– provider access to all the data, knowledge, and wisdom related to her care. In Design for Care, Peter Jones outlines the critical role of design in the wellness care of the future, ensuring that every provider and patient is empowered with the services and tools they need for healthcare quality, safety, and efficiency. His thoughtful analysis includes all the core concepts that are driving the US healthcare IT stimulus—policies and technologies that engage the patient, eliminate disparities, protect privacy, and prevent avoidable harm. When I mentioned that my wife’s care required universal access to data, knowledge, and wisdom, what did I mean? Data includes the simple facts about her care—an appointment is made, a medication is given, a lab test has a result. Information is the interpretation of her data in a manner that is relevant to her care—her hematocrit at baseline is 39, and after chemo- therapy it is 30. Her medications have caused side effects that may outweigh the benefits of the drug. Wisdom is applying decision support rules to her information that optimizes her care. Because her tumor is estrogen positive, progesterone positive, and HER2 negative, the best therapy is Cytoxan/Adri- amycin/Taxol. Her accumulated radiation dose from all the mammograms, CT scans, and other studies is concerning, and thus ultrasound should be used when possible. We clearly need better ways to move between data and information to knowledge and wisdom in today’s complex healthcare world. This book illus- trates these points and emphasizes the need for patients and providers to embrace a wise integration of technology into healthcare service. Meaningful use and care improvements through universal adoption of elec- tronic tools is just one of the major trends in the era of healthcare reform. “Patient-centered medical homes,” “accountable care organizations,” and “population health” are the new buzzwords. We need to rethink and actually design the new models of service, institutional practice, and patient engage- ment that ensure these new institutions become innovative alternatives to
xiv Foreword the care model, and don’t simply replicate business as usual. The new con- cept is that care is no longer episodic, but continuous. Patients are engaged in their daily lives, and the emphasis is no longer on the treatment of illness but the preservation of wellness, maximizing functional status and care according to the preferences of the patient. Peter Jones examines the kinds of innovations that are moving care away from academic health centers and into the community and homes. This trend is essential—healthcare in the United States consumes 17% of the gross domestic product. It is a poor value, with significant cost and less than stellar outcomes. To bend the cost curve and create high-value care, it is wise to follow the recommendations outlined in this book. Embrace technol- ogy, but design it well and consider its future trajectory and how it affects safety and interaction with patients. Engage the patient and innovate in ways that focus on longitudinal wellness rather than episodic encounters for illness. I am confident you will find this book a helpful road map to guide your own journey to improve health and healthcare. —John Halamka, MD Chief Information Officer, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
xv Introduction Care, and healthcare, is about taking care of humanity. Health is personal and universal—it may be the one value everyone cares about. Healthcare is the most hands-on of professions and services, and yet is extremely tech- nical. As the industry intensifies the adoption of digital and electronic technologies, deeply informed design of services and systems becomes a pressing and critical need. At the same time, healthcare design does not yet fit into the conventional clinical organization, and institutional practices have not established meaningful positions for design. However, considering the increasing role of technology, the risk of errors induced by poor design, and the complexity of healthcare itself, designers from specialized disci- plines should play critical roles in all technology decisions. Healthcare in the United States is a mess. Technically, a “mess” is a complex set of problems with inextricable interdependencies. The overall system of healthcare—from services to payment to policy—has grown so complicated that a redesign of its components would not change the system substantially. New design thinking is called for, yet where do we start? Designers have no access to the system levers, and most of our work today is aimed at making the components run better and safer. Healthcare has always organized itself around the patient encounter. Each human being with a healthcare need must be engaged in person and with respect to his or her unique biological and environmental circumstances. Healthcare services are designed to manage the flow of people from need to outcome, generally one at a time, according to the encounter formula. Services are aggregated into “big box” clinical solutions—hospitals and clin- ics—that serve as our “care malls” for full-service healthcare. Big box care is aggregated at the system level to regional and payer networks. Healthcare is changing rapidly, attended by the increasing complex- ity related to its information glut. Consumer access to highly credible health websites has irreversibly altered the traditional equation, changing once-passive patients into stakeholders in the healthcare business. Their awareness of and access to health information challenges the hegemony of institutional practice. But innovations in healthcare and open information are also balanced by the inherent risks of institutional care, its systemic risk aversion, and its regulatory environment. As healthcare services undergo constant change, do we know how the numerous information systems are cooperating, and how different views of patient data are shared? How will new information infrastructures, systems, and configurations affect prac- tice? How will changes in practice affect patients?
xvi Introduction One intention of this book is to enable better communication, under- standing, and knowledge transfer between healthcare fields and work experiences. The chapters are organized to reflect the human health experi- ence and to discuss issues at the points of interaction where people seek and receive healthcare. Designers (in general) perform systematic problem solving to formulate better ways for humans to interact with technology and services. Many designers work on systemic “big box” problems such as process workflow, information displays, and wayfinding; or behind the scenes on medical devices, health IT, or Web interfaces. As in the field itself, few designers are able to contribute in more than one healthcare sector. Therefore, better understanding between sectors will enable us to design better end-to-end processes and whole systems. This book aims to create awareness across these segments and sectors by indexing representative issues and powerful methods from successful applications. Design, in all its disciplines and methods, is finally emerging in new and influential roles in all types of healthcare services. Medicine is not, in practice, an online and digital field, but the rapid development of digital technologies in care delivery and education is drawing new designers into all healthcare sectors, from consumer websites to clinic design. Design for Care speaks to these designers and health professionals about how, where, and why their fields connect at the many points of care and service. Designing for Care Experiences Care is a powerful value, one we all take seriously. When a friend announces that he or she is taking time off from work to “take care of” a spouse or other family member, we understand the empathic response to a life-changing sit- uation that takes priority over other values. Care is not just a response in the present. We project concern and hope into a shared future, and hold both memory and expectation for the cared for. Caring extends over time, unlike the immediate empathy needed to understand user experience, for example. Yet caring is not just temporal, based on need, it is considered an endur- ing and authentic characteristic of a person. People take care of the others in their lives. Direct design implications are revealed in this observation. There may not always be a single “user” for health information and services. The single-user persona may need to be updated to a family scenario and the “best-friend search” use case. As some informatics researchers are now
Introduction xvii pointing out, the health-seeking experience is a multiparticipant, multiuser circle of care. It is often familial, and inherently and intimately social. The verb care has acquired different meanings in different health and caring professions, and each profession related to health and human development may subscribe to a different definition and view of care. When settling these differences in meaning and not just discourse, the problem becomes onto- logical, a question of the reality of caring. This is not simply a conversion of meanings from one field to another. The very meaning of care and caring differs between providers (health practitioners) and between providers and recipients (patients). Design has not yet taken a clear stand in the matter of care. Perhaps we recognize that we cannot own the core when we ourselves still live and work at the periphery. Philosopher Milton Mayeroff defined caring as acting on empathy, as being able to understand another’s world as if you were that person. Caring requires knowing, trust, patience, humility, honesty, and the primacy of life’s rhythms. According to Mayeroff, for caring to take place, “there must also be developmental change of the other as a result of what I do; I must actually help the other grow.”1 How the Design Industry Must Change Design has never been a serious contender for service as a caring profes- sion. Across the full range of design fields, from communications and visual design to fashion and product design, designers are recruited to enhance campaigns that oppose values of caring. The recent vogue of design think- ing does nothing to alter the technological affinity of the design professions. Design, more than the sciences even, has been steered toward a values- neutral practice of creative product and service development. There are no core ethics of design thinking, no inherent barriers of duty or conscience that keep designers from switching from healthcare “content” to beverage industry clients. Design thinking’s crucial test is not merely surviving the merger of design and business with its soul intact, but in transforming orga- nizational practices by continually repositioning real human beings in the center of design and service management decisions. Learning from empathy is a first step toward caring, by allowing us to understand how other people experience the situations we are commit- ted to improving. Given the interest in emotional design and empathic research methods in recent years, this step may not be in doubt. Responding
xviii Introduction as professionals to the call of caring marks the current bright line between the caring professions and supporting disciplines, such as design, IT, and human research, that are not called to patient care. The call to care suggests a possible primary design position. Caring con- fronts us directly with a question of human valuing that we—designers and health professionals—may believe we are already fulfilling in some way. As with all values, the way it is understood can and will differ significantly between people. We might start from the assumption that, as designers, we do not know (yet) how the values of care are lived and acted upon. We must interpret without (yet) being expert. Design for Care presents scenarios for designers to con- sider the human and social value of caring, the various ways care shows up in health seeking and health making, and the systemic role of care. Finding Your Place in the Story Healthcare is a massively complex system that deals with at least two irreducible sources of complexity: the institutional (distributed provider systems and hospitals) and the personal (the biological and social set- ting of the human body). Furthermore, these realms cannot be isolated, because the purpose of the institution is to serve individuals. An infinite variety of possible problems arise in the relationships between these two spheres of purposeful behavior. The opportunities for design to have an impact are everywhere, from effective comprehension of materials and wayfinding to improving education and information resources. Healthcare systems provide designers a constant, endless challenge in helping clini- cians and patients navigate complex situations. Where is your place in the larger story? Design (of all disciplines) is not yet showing its impact in health services. For the most part, designers remain on the sidelines in institutions and practice, unsure of where and how to step in to make a difference. Compounding this position is the difficulty that designers are often not given the latitude to practice creatively and meaningfully in healthcare institutions. The medical and institutional care traditions do not offer a ready berth for design, and our traditional positions have little systemic impact if employed without strategic intent. Until we prove to be valuable contributing members of the care team, we risk being seen as specialists and even marginal players in the story of care.
Introduction xix User experience won over every other application field, after a decade or more of commitment to business and IT. But change and innovation hap- pen differently in healthcare than in other sectors—the risks are higher, the funding is regulated, and the “users” are not paying (or complaining) directly. IT is not the front line of patient care. If we are not working together with a systemic strategy, we may be contributing to the fragmentation of the field by optimizing narrow bands of practice that sustain old habits. We have no way of knowing without reaching agreement on a common design lan- guage that aligns the levels of care, the organization, and its system. “Designing for care” has several meanings. Each chapter in this book focuses on a different aspect of human-centered design for care practice, identify- ing design approaches for the activity. A critical opportunity for designers is to transform the value available at the front lines of healthcare practice. Healthcare is changing rapidly, dramatically, and somewhat chaotically, as any change pushes ripple effects through the complex system. Healthcare reform, creating better care services around the patient experience, and humanizing IT are opportunities for design to contribute as a field.
Rethinking Care and Its Consumers Part I
2 Part I T he rapid diffusion of hundreds of Web resources for health purposes has created a gap between information quality and user expectations. Consumers can now pursue their own research into health issues by searching the vast collections of consumer-oriented health information on the Web. They cannot be expected to understand the complexity of health issues, but do expect health information to be truthful. Yet more information does not yield better information. In fact, quite the opposite may be true. Part I focuses on the health-seeking activities of the healthcare consumer. Health-Seeking Experiences A person’s health seeking is a continuous process of taking steps toward bet- ter health—before, during, and after any type of encounter with traditional healthcare service. Health seeking, as with other human motivations such as pleasure seeking or status seeking, represents an individual journey, in this case toward relatively better health. For a very healthy person, the ideal of perfect fitness may be an authentic health-seeking journey. For a cancer sufferer, relative health may be a matter of surviving treatment and fighting for gains in remission. These are health-seeking behaviors with quite differ- ent personal struggles, achievements, care needs, and support requirements. Seeking health covers a set of fundamental human needs. Every person is a health seeker in their own way, even if not a “patient” or a fitness buff. A person’s progress in health seeking is measured by points of feedback sensed from their everyday lives and received from professionals. People with chronic health concerns such as diabetes need continuous feedback. Those in “normal” health may find health feedback only marginally helpful. (For example, I may measure my workout progress, but I weigh myself on a scale maybe only twice a year.) People also have different timeframes of health feedback. Think of the health-seeking journey as occurring over a lifetime, a continuity that pro- ceeds through youth, adulthood, and older age. The individual and his or her immediate circle of care (spouse or partner, family, friends) are co–health seekers in many ways (though never “co-patients”). Everyone travels this journey together with parents, children, friends. The health journey includes a lifetime of other encounters and experiences that can enhance responsible healthy behaviors. Yet healthcare providers have little insight into the continuous health-seeking journey. Although doctors may see dozens of individual “cases” on any given day, they have little time and usually no formal payment mechanism to follow an individual’s health journey after a professional medical encounter. Their brief touchpoint is but one opportunity for improving an individual’s health among dozens in a given day. There are certainly different types of practices, and some do track and manage longitudinal health outcomes. Yet an individual’s health seeking is his or her own journey.
Rethinking Care and Its Consumers 3 For more than a century, Western healthcare has treated people as patients, as passengers in a complicated and mysterious train on rails governed by seemingly unknowable biological forces. Any degree of pathology is relative to a normal (“healthy”) standard and to a person’s own experience, which may be unknowably limited and limiting. The normal condition is one of relatively balanced health in a constant motion toward homeostasis. When facing conditions that require medical intervention, people are motivated to seek health as an end in itself, as well as supporting all other goals in life. Clinicians might find the current mandate to improve the patient experi- ence as the perfect entry point to engage design practices as full partners in providing better care. Designers have the advantage of not being doctors— they are not professionally bound to the same legal responsibility to treat people only as patients, subject to clinical intervention. By repositioning the individual health seeker as a deciding and knowing agent of his or her own experience, health services can be designed to facilitate a whole-person approach to health. Improving patient experiences is the just the first step in a cultural and historical shift. A person is a patient for a limited period, but the experience of seeking health is a continuous process throughout life. Care providers and resources can help restore natural and supported func- tions of life. Health seeking is not just a “journey to normal” because there is no final state of health. People live with multiple conditions of relative health in a balancing system. Measures and indicators of “healthy” are not optimized; they are better or worse compared to an individual’s own baselines. People may lose weight by dieting but not improve cholesterol levels; they may recover from a viral infection but have a cough for weeks. No health mea- sures are static, and the numbers of good measures are not as “objectively healthy” as people might think. Health journeys are self-educating—people evolve as they learn in stages of struggle, understanding, acceptance, and self-management. Health seek- ing is an evolutionary act of self-discovery, of sustainable improvements of behavior and experience that claim a personal stake in one’s present satis- faction and future thriving. The Health Seeker in Context Beginning in Chapter 2, each chapter advances the scenario of a persona character, Elena, as she navigates complex health issues and pursues health outcomes over a series of setbacks and healthcare encounters. Her story serves as a baseline narrative to observe human responses to events, touch- points, and likely decisions for care services. This health-seeking journey is loosely aligned with each chapter’s content.
Situation Touchpoints Journey Motive Chapter Seeking family health Focus on personal health Significant health concern Seeking treatment Helping others Harmonious home and family Sustain personal productivity Recover health to at least former level Best survival outcome Share lessons learned Caregiving Health Incident Diagnosis Treatment Living With 2 Years 2 Months 2 Weeks 2 Days Future Health Seeking | Elena’s Journey Elena Daughter Relatives Friends Father Elena 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Web, home, e-mail Social circle of empathy Doctor’s office, Web, home Mutual circles of empathy Specialist center, Web, home Intimate circle of care Hospital, Web, home Personal circle of care Web, e-mail, workplace, home Information Resources Health communities and personal social media Consumer/professional resources (Medscape, HealthKnowledge) Physician references Consumer websites (Everyday Health, WebMD, Mayo Clinic) Consumer websites, physician references
Rethinking Care and Its Consumers 5 Elena’s scenario is not unlike a service journey map, except from the perspective of the health seeker, whose shifts in role and identity are based on health condition and goals. The journey map is based on a typi- cal method for portraying the navigation of health seeking and clinical encounters (Figure I.1). Notice that over the entire span of roughly two years, significant health events happen in brief intervals of two months or less, with significant impact on future health and life outcomes. Physiological measures indicating relative health are not shown on this timeline, but are suggested in other contexts to indicate correspondences between measures, acute incidents, and recovery. Design goals for the health seeker in this journey view might include: • Connecting Elena to her immediate family to support her caregiver role (through electronic media, printed artifacts such as notes and remind- ers, and multisensory media). • Giving her direct support to inform and manage her family’s health needs, and connecting her with any services for which she has regular touchpoints. • Providing her with emotional support as a caregiver to help sustain her motivation and keep track of health progress. • Enabling her to easily update and track her interactions with clinical services and healthcare systems. Part I, with its focus on consumer contexts, describes Elena’s personal sphere as she seeks information, support, and resources from her immediate circle of family and community to meet her health goals. Part II describes her choices and outcomes experienced as a healthcare patient, and Part III shows her as a participant in the healthcare system. Figure I.1 A health seeker’s journey.
Chapter 1 Design as Caregiving Can Healthcare Innovate Itself? 8 Are There Users of Care? 12 A Caring Design Ethic 15 The Design Thinking Divide 17 Wicked Problems in Healthcare Design 21
8 Chapter 1 Can Healthcare Innovate Itself? Whether you choose a story from your own life experience or from that of a friend or family member, or just Google “healthcare horror stories,” the problems in healthcare today are clear and all too common. Urban emer- gency rooms are overflowing, medical devices have misleading interfaces that lead to errors, doctors order too many expensive and unnecessary tests, and medical records are confusing and unreadable. Private health insurance is complex, expensive, and fragmented, sometimes resulting in crippling financial difficulties. Pharmaceutical wonder drugs are pulled off the market after a few years as emerging harmful side effects show up. Healthcare has optimized every function in the system, but the system grows more complex as these functions overlap and compete. As Harvard management professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter recently wrote, Supposedly, everyone working in health care wants the same thing: to help people get and stay healthy. . . . The problem is that everyone can have a different view of the meaning of getting and staying healthy. Lack of consensus among players in a complex system is one of the biggest barriers to innovation. One sub- group’s innovation is another subgroup’s loss of control.1 Because healthcare problems are so complicated and messy, they cannot easily be untangled once they appear. Mike McCallister, CEO of insur- ance provider Humana, described the US healthcare sector as a gigantic mix of varied players that is “broken, but can be fixed. We don’t actually have a healthcare system. We have a lot of different systems that are glued together.”2 Alex Jadad, founder of Toronto’s Centre for Global eHealth Inno- vation, calls for immediate innovation in person-centered healthcare and collaborative development of IT to help Canada’s high-functioning but stressed healthcare system: “This technology can help us transcend our cognitive, physical, institutional, geographical, cultural, linguistic, and his- torical boundaries. Or it can contribute to our extinction.”3 Designing for care brings a holistic and systemic design perspective to the complex problems of healthcare. We are already improving services by designing better artifacts, communications, and environments. What remains missing is the mindset of professional care in designing for people, practitioners, and societies. Like clinicians, designers in the health field can take responsibility for helping people and societies become healthier in all aspects of living. Technology Will Not Save Healthcare Technologists advocate for disruptive innovation in healthcare, a call that envisions radical change for consumers as well as the largest institutions. The two targets of disruption are typically hospital-based institutional
Design as Caregiving 9 healthcare and the medical care model itself. The cure is envisioned to be a future of low-cost networked computer technology owned by consumers, not clinicians. A kit can be imagined consisting of embedded sensors con- nected to a handset, cloud-based data collection with instant analytics, and continuous-learning algorithms that diagnose individual conditions based on rapid sensor tests and genetic analysis. Possible new treatments are not described clearly, but still an accountable person will be needed to adminis- ter injections and judge the appropriate therapy and medications. A problem with such scenarios is that they project a future driven by technological determinism—because it can be done, it will be done. The decentralized “future of medicine” scenarios articulate radical changes in technology but fail to address changes in cultural meaning. As pictured by Silicon Valley, healthcare could be decentralized and fragmented into defined care streams that the “user” (the patient) would navigate as self- service interfaces. In effect, these scenarios shift care decisions to “consum- ers” who might be existentially vulnerable to their own poor decisions (as well as to new types of usability risks). If patients are forced by economic changes to trust a technology instead of a physician, the ethics of “brave new healthcare” scenarios become socially problematic. The technologically determined scenarios suggest a sociological change more radical than any other system designed in human society. Healthcare is the world’s largest employment base, with national health systems among the largest employers in their respective countries. Such a disruption would ignore the sociotechnical foundation of healthcare that underlies practice, education, policy, employment, and the very meaning of care. It risks replac- ing medicine with a new corporate system devoid of human socioculture or caring, treating diseases as functional states mediated by robots. Although the enabling technologies can and will be developed, their implementation will look very little like the visions of computational “personalized” medi- cine imagined by technological utopians (and investors standing to benefit). Another focus of disruptive change is the US private insurance model, which turns on policy innovation and not technology. Innovation in insurance- managed payments to guarantee equitable care services might make the single largest difference in people’s everyday lives. If patients did not have to worry about going bankrupt to pay for the noncovered costs for healthcare services, they would view their health and self-care differently. Although not a perfect policy for either citizens or providers, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) established a new framework for policy innovation to occur, to meet the goals of covering uninsured Americans and managing aggre- gate costs. If the system were not based on profit-seeking business models, innovative new care practices would be designed and implemented. In the United States today, however, with multiple layers of cost accounting and payment review, stakeholders distrust one another, and patients lose out. Unfortunately, the ultimate fix is not technological but political, the results
10 Chapter 1 of policy innovation to ensure universal coverage and appropriate technol- ogy support. Major policy changes will be necessary to encourage the risk-averse health industry to accept system-wide innovation. Today, healthcare systems and their management are the biggest barriers to meaningful innovation, as they have so much to lose in a paradigmatic shift. Even the most radical breakthrough technologies often demonstrate only incremental improvements to the service and experience of care. As new clinical services are developed around emerging medical technologies, the form and function of current practice will change only modestly, perhaps not even perceptibly to patients. Due to culture, risk, payment, generally accepted practices, and other systemic factors, technological change is often not leveraged as an opportunity to change policy and practice. Both of these envisioned “disruptions” shift profits and costs, winners and losers. Only the disruption of the insurance industry guarantees a benefi- cial cost shift to consumers in the near term. There are no guarantees that technological disruption will pass end savings to consumers. Though low- cost systems can be developed, there are no social provisions for regulating the resulting business models and new corporate entities that could manage health technologies. If the pharmaceutical industry (which is rarely men- tioned as a target for disruption) cannot innovate new business models, it seems misguided to believe that emerging technologies slated to replace physicians will be priced any differently than pharmaceutical products. In a market-based system, disruptive innovations create real competi- tive value by making long-established services obsolete. But even if many healthcare services are profit-based, should innovation best be envisioned as enabling a competitive economic outcome? How does disruption help healthcare? Human lives are at stake, not merely profits. Innovation of Human-Centered Care Systems All-out radical technological change is not the only way to create value for health seekers and reduce exponential costs. A better way to innovate might be found in designing human-centered care systems. The human-centered design of healthcare has never been more neces- sary. Leading innovation provocateur Don Norman, with designer and author Roberto Verganti, proposed a concept and solution to the paradox of “merely” incremental innovation from human-centered design.4 They position radical and incremental technology innovation against radical and incremental innovation of meaning. The position emerged from Norman’s observation that only new technologies were found to trigger radical change. And yes, he found that human-centered design research (studying users in their native habitat) rarely, if ever, led to disruptive innovation. Though
Design as Caregiving 11 essential to incremental improvements in technological systems from air- planes to software, design research fails to find breakthroughs, due in part to the fact that radical changes cannot be extrapolated from observing practice. Further, user evidence tends to reinforce the very practices being studied, as user behavior is defined by its goals and productivity, not the experimentation that might lead to completely new practices. The shift to cultural and practice innovation is found in the other half of the Norman-Verganti equation: the radical innovation of meaning. What Verganti calls design-led innovation involves redefining the socially rec- ognized meaning of technology or a practice. Sociotechnical practices in healthcare may be reframed (without radically changing technologies) to shift the social purpose. The accountable care organization (ACO) model promoted by new US legislation carries the seeds of new value propositions that have yet to be tested. The essential meaning change is that of localized care centers with more attention to patient life needs to reduce readmit- tances. Although ACOs might become radically patient-centered, perhaps the most significant value will emerge in the social meaning change, with new types of care practices being envisioned that reinvent the relationship of providers and health seekers. These practices and their business models offer fertile ground for the new types of designers being trained in socially aware innovation. Disruptive innovations that we see in other industries may have less of a role in healthcare, even though the opportunities for new technology are clearly present. Healthcare facilities are not early adopters. New software, devices, and systems take time to learn and socialize, and the investment of professional time and budget in training and ramp-up is quite expensive. The expense of these social costs can outweigh the benefit of adoption. For example, desktop computers took years to infiltrate hospitals, and by the time they were ubiquitous in the clinic, they had become common in homes. Minimal training was necessary because the technology was already per- vasive. The use of mobile devices is following the same late adopter cycle, allowing for a more natural (less forced) introduction of new devices into high-performance, high-risk clinical environments. Even information systems require mammoth projects for system-wide implementation. The adoption of new services and systems is by no means a given. Breakthrough medical technologies are also not adopted immediately by institutions. New technologies, devices, and therapies require extensive review and evaluation through animal and human trials, developmental testing, and regulatory approvals. Changes in practice may take months or even years to filter through an institution or system diffused across regions and affiliation. For example, the truly disruptive da Vinci robotic surgery system did not change medical practice as we know it. It allows skilled sur- geons to operate on remote and special-case patients who were previously
12 Chapter 1 underserved. Da Vinci signals the start of a new trend that might increase capital costs (as hospitals must all acquire it to compete) as well as lower surgery costs, potentially having a democratizing effect of equalizing the quality of routine surgeries across regions. Da Vinci is a disruptive technology that shows significant yet incremen- tal effects. Organizations absorb the new system into the current business model. For now at least, hospitals remain big box clinical institutions. Tech- nology and product design have only incremental effects on the patient experience. Patients must still be prepped and undergo an invasive proce- dure, yet now with the much greater convenience of being able to show up at a community-based clinic in the healthcare network. Change is difficult for doctors, and adaptation to changes can be discomforting for patients. This perspective of redesigning existing practices explodes one of the most treasured myths of innovation. Many authors suggest that disruptive inter- ventions have the highest impact and are therefore the aim of innovation. Innovation theories celebrate the value of “disruptive” innovation as the most competitive form of innovation. Yet what are the purposes of disrup- tive healthcare innovation? To improve efficiencies, costs, practices, or patient experiences? We might reframe the purposes of disruptive innovation in institutional healthcare based on the experience with platforms and devices. The da Vinci system performs operative functions that surgical teams can understand and integrate within well-defined routines. It doesn’t disrupt the function of surgery, but rather the way routine operations are physically performed. Information technologies tend to disrupt clinical work in ways that may reduce efficiency of performance. New systems require training and ramp-up time (away from patients). Additional time must be allocated for electronic entries for the purported benefit of administration, not patients. Consider the societal value of an innovation from the perspective of those most affected by the results. Does a simple value analysis show benefit to all direct stakeholders? Will health seekers benefit from the change? Are There Users of Care? Healthcare is a complicated business, and can be a complicated context for design. Multiple stakeholders (from consumers and patients to clinical staff, administrators, and insurers) interact with multiple services (from primary care to academic institutional networks) in multiple sectors (from clinical practice to insurance and government). Traditional user-centered design practices are insufficiently powerful to solve problems at this level of com- plexity. We can easily and mistakenly design a perfect product or service for “our users,” yet remain disconnected from the other systems and stakehold- ers the service may affect.
Design as Caregiving 13 In health contexts, the risks to health and the effects on practice are always considered. Healthcare environments require the use of far more rigor- ous design and development methods than the contemporary trend in user experience (UX) and service design. Involving both significant financial and human life impacts, investment decisions are based on evidence, with a strong organizational bias toward statistical evidence. Designers face a recurring challenge in every healthcare project—to envi- sion the scope for service sufficient to meet future needs and growing complexity. We design for situations that have multiple interacting work- flows, poor integration, layers of legacy infrastructure, and highly dispersed applications. These legacies constrain the ability to design services across departments, institutions, or at any level we consider as “the system.” Healthcare is a large-scale distributed system dedicated to serving individu- als with health needs but who are not the paying customer. This is a classic dilemma of service and experience design: the patient (the end user) has lit- tle decision-making power but a life-critical need; the institutional customer (who pays) has significant power but little understanding of need. Patients and practitioners are changing the balance of power through improved transparency and access to information. But these social, human, and information interactions magnify the technical complexities because they introduce new uncertainties to decisions and transactions. UX design advocates understanding and designing for the optimal user interaction. It often supposes an interactive product with specified uses in a work (or point of care) context. User-centered design has served as a suf- ficiently powerful methodology for a generation, and health informatics and technologies have improved significantly, if incrementally. A generation of experience designers has been trained to represent the interests and needs of users, and we have institutionalized “the user” as shorthand for design (user-centered) and usability (user-friendly). However, there is no single user in healthcare, and the convention of referring to users may be misleading in the context of care. In healthcare practice and design, the vocabulary and perception of the human subject is dominated by three primary frames: user, patient, and con- sumer. All three designations are passive, objectified representations that constrain a person’s significance as a “health actor” to a transactional role. These roles designate people as users of products (user), clients of institu- tions (patient), or recipients of services (consumer). If we examine critically the ways in which designers participate in projects, advise on the design of IT and systems, and select research methods, the attendant design values of these roles show up in dialogue and decision making. A user-centered service design perspective leads us to focus on the patient, the recipient of care and the human actor most vulnerable to “disruptive”
14 Chapter 1 technology impacts. By focusing on patient outcomes and processes, design decisions are unassailable and credible. Presenting a case based on real patient needs and experience can move a room of mixed opinions to consen- sus agreement. The patient-centered perspective has become a significant movement in medical practice, and is central to healthcare service design. Yet people do not see themselves as patients; it is not a persistent role or identity that people choose. The patient identity is not persistent across the continuous experience of health seeking. Also, as readily observed in healthcare institu- tions, not all service problems involve patient behavior. The patient is not central to every function in healthcare systems and organizations. We have also been conditioned through years of professionalization to accept a medical view of wellness and sickness, a view in which people show up as patients within a largely corporate healthcare system. As designers, we unwittingly follow this model when we adopt a conventional approach to workflow and personas. We even risk this perspective when making claims for “improving the patient experience.” That is, we are still framing a clinical encounter as a “patient experience,” making the inevitable more comfortable or efficient. We risk representing a supply-side (vendor-oriented) perspec- tive, which only simulates empathy or care, regardless of the humanizing intent of the methods. If not working within a clinical organization, we may not be able to speak with real patients in actual care situations. Designers and health professionals need better methods for understanding experience and making design claims with often limited access and data. A market-based viewpoint defines people as customers and receivers of health or information services that others produce and supply. The consumer designation fixes our attention to a transactional service relationship inimi- cal to the values of care. Critiquing the consumer persona or mindset frees up the capacity to innovate with fresh perspectives. Human health is not the result of a service transaction; rather, it flourishes in the context of care, drawing on personal, familial, professional, and community resources. In a complex system such as healthcare, naming any persona as a user privileges just one role in the system. It also assumes something to use, and traditional modes of use are often not the case in healthcare. In care situ- ations, everyone participates at some point in a human system of health seeking from which we produce care and support. By enlarging the scope of health seeking to view it as a social context of health seekers and caregivers, we expand beyond our narrow (and professional) point of view that wants to designate people as “users.” Each of these three frames (user, patient, consumer) has relevance in certain circumstances, and they are useful to indicate to designers the differences in identity and activity across the spectrum of health services. Yet real people do not experience themselves as these roles, especially in health situations.
Design as Caregiving 15 We might actively replace the old mental models with a fresh perspec- tive based on the lived experience of health. What should designing for care establish as the perspective for care-centered practices? To answer this, let’s ask higher order questions: Why are people in the healthcare system? What motivates people who seek care and health? The health seeker may not be a patient or even a consumer, but any per- son aware of her motivation to improve her health. A health seeker may be any person desiring better health for his own life circumstance, for a fam- ily member, or a friend. A family or community might seek health. It is not necessarily an individual experience. People do not always follow medical advice, take their prescriptions, or take the most rational steps when dealing with a disease condition. People make sense of their life concerns together with their specific questions when seeking health and health information. As such, health seeking is not just looking things up on Dr. Google. It is a process of organizing one’s experience and trusted resources, including materials from the Web and advice from health professionals and family and friends, to address partially formed questions. If health seeking can be understood as a continuous lifelong process, a care-centered design orienta- tion can span the different needs of patient, professional, and service, and help us define priorities for intervention and redesign. A Caring Design Ethic Caring design requires a change in meaning, as the design professions have no tradition of care practices. True care goes beyond the appreciative and participates with the personal feelings and social concerns shared by both patients and practitioners. Beyond the instrumental empathy “in order to” understand the user, care seeks to understand the senses and feelings of a person, as they really matter. An honest, empathic interest expressed in care will be challenged by the typical organizational commitments of a designer’s IT company or agency. When we use project management language to structure our product requirements and define our shared goals, we may fail to even acknowledge the other values calling for attention in a care situation. In healthcare, care design may then part ways with both the individualistic approach to creativ- ity and the brutal efficiencies of project management in design execution. The values and ideals promoted in a caring design ethic are drawn from the humane arts and sciences of health and medicine. These include empathic care, doing no harm, health for the whole person, and helping people live sustainable lives. Devoting a new focus of care in design practice requires an innovation of meaning for designers, and it may change our methods, tools, and engagements. The narrative for this next generation of humane design practice has yet to be formed. How will the meaning of value to clients, com- munities, and health seekers change?
16 Chapter 1 Shifting Focus from Product to Person New systems are not always the answer. Consider the cumulative impact of the thousands of cognitive interactions required of users for every new service, system, interface, device, or billing statement. Doctors are too busy to adopt more than a few essential services, and they often maintain older systems that are safely committed to memory, rather than invest time in learning a new system that may introduce transition risks and fail to improve care or costs. Patients may be confused by the sprawling range of Web services and competing arrays of redundant online health information. Consider the many new products, interfaces, and tools for individual health- care that may be innovative but have no accepted mandate. For example, personal health records (PHR), such as Microsoft HealthVault, have been available since 2007, but adoption has been hampered by the lack of basic usability, limited utility, and “understandability.” Most people do not yet understand the PHR and its possible value. Google ended the Google Health PHR in 2011 due to a lack of general acceptance and process (not just inter- face) usability. An application only used by individuals who must use it is not a basis for mass adoption. Issues such as information privacy, caregiver accessibility, and care team collaboration are also significant design factors. Technical and usability concerns are also daunting impediments to acceptance and adoption. The early adopters of personal health technologies are people motivated to use these tools for daily needs, but patients living with significant health con- cerns may—due to age and multiple conditions—find it more difficult to learn and use these tools than people with less need for them. The Case for Caring Design Although each design discipline differs in its methods and targets, most designers work at understanding problems of human use of a thing or a system, and innovate to make effective changes that people desire. Since the dawn of medicine and physical care, people have designed artifacts to enhance practice, comfort, and communications. Nurses “designed” the Kardex documentation system, and medical librarians contributed to the formal design of medical charts. But until very recently, people trained as designers have largely been absent from the health professions, and very few programs educate designers in healthcare practices. In the 1980s, first in architecture and then (much later) in device design human factors, specially trained designers began focusing on health appli- cations. Human interface design for medical devices only improved after problems were reported with control interfaces in devices (such as drug infusion pumps) that had been designed by engineers with no user inter- face design training. With the recent explosion of informatics and health
Design as Caregiving 17 websites in the last decade, it would seem the entry point for service and experience design has finally arrived. Design is not taught or (in practice) led from a caring perspective. Design is a creative practice that employs empathy as a method for designing bet- ter, more usable products and services. Empathy is a temporary caring, and becomes instrumental when invoked as a means to improving the design of things or services for sale. Although we may care about the impact of our design work, we do not usually follow and care for the lives of our users, or the patients affected by our systems. We may care about users and patients, but we are not called on to care about any particular person. How we might “care more” is a question that requires rethinking the role of design and human-centered research. The difference may entail moving from perform- ing as contributing designers to coordinating patient-centered service projects. In these scenarios, the health outcomes of future patients are now at stake. Yet the imperative for innovation and service change means organi- zations will accept a higher level of creative and participatory design. The Design Thinking Divide Healthcare practice and institutions have no common voice, and few “whole system” advocates are followed. Ranking just after the prime directive of “help all and do no harm,” institutions care about cost and risk. Because change incurs both costs and risk, healthcare has significant incentives not to change the system. These values and incentives powerfully determine the scope of design impact. Traditional UX and service design methodologies may be necessary, but are not sufficient. Design proposals require sponsors to weigh care, cost, and risk. Institutional sponsors deal in quantitative evidence where possible, and designers make qualitative arguments based on human experience. Making matters worse in practice, design and implementation decisions are fraught with compet- ing interests, often imposing near-term decision making on the IT team and changes in practice, and design and research professionals are often isolated in narrow bands of problem scope. The complexity of healthcare IT applications requires that designers make a personal and usually long-term commitment to the domain, involving years of learning, practice, and patience with slow progress. In institutional or commercial healthcare IT development, designers have much less con- trol over the delivered experience than in other fields. The opportunities for creative influence or enhancement may not be apparent (and may need to be courageously co-created in the organization). Healthcare as a domain is strongly influenced by empirical scientific tradition and evidence-based practices. Designers will be expected to understand and adapt to the lan- guage of the domain rather than the language of design and user experience.
18 Chapter 1 Large-scale healthcare applications are based on enterprise IT architec- tures, which may take many years of development cycles to significantly change. And ethnographic or field research is hampered by limited access to the different “users,” especially patients, due to privacy and immediate care considerations. Most research studies take months, not weeks, because they are carefully designed and then reviewed by ethics boards. Due to these fac- tors and the hierarchical and highly managed healthcare culture, a design team must be committed to making a difference over the long term. Healthcare applications—at least institutional applications—are not designed by means of creative ideation, participatory design, or even itera- tive prototyping. There are few national-level design advisors or advocates from the design or even the industrial engineering fields. Publications are dominated by physicians and informatics specialists, whose work is often based on tightly focused, feasible research agendas fitting institutional man- dates. Conferences are highly specialized within medical or educational discipline (professional societies), technology (health IT and informatics), technology-oriented research (the Medicine 2.0 movement), and disease specialization (e.g., the American Diabetes Association). There are no regu- lar design-oriented conferences in the healthcare field yet, and few tracks within conferences to encourage discourse between design professionals across different fields. Our current lack of standing is also evidenced by the subordination of design practice to every other field we support. Yet the situ- ation is changing, and many new points of entry have opened. Lost and Found in the System How do designers build a more systemic approach? We are not typically engaged at the level of healthcare reform or practice, but serve in problem- solving teams for well-framed issues. Our points of entry to the system level are not clear. The advisors and policy advocates in healthcare are distinctly separated by problem area (disease management, medical education, health insurance reform) and separated by problem-solving approach (policy, prac- tice innovation, patient-centered medicine, information systems). Due to the complexity of healthcare practices and the compelling urgency of narrow-focus concerns, individual designers and design teams are often unable to design solutions to address root causes. It is rare to design any application that scales across institutions or practice areas. The Web does not count because most applications are piecemeal, insufficient, or one of many similar sites. Universal access is not a solution for scaling across domains or services. Given the serious design risks of unforeseeable design error in health prac- tice and the hazards of liability, designers, researchers, and engineers are obligated to understand the systemic problems in the field. Small oversights
Design as Caregiving 19 can lead to consequential errors. As a patient you may have noticed an irritating but inconspicuous oversight, such as the overly small text size on a prescription label or a long wait in an examination room. Or you may have experienced the frustration of poor information organization—or even intentional obfuscation—as you attempt to decipher your insurance coverage before phoning for an appointment. You may have been the hap- less recipient of an everyday medical mistake, such as a slightly misplaced needle insertion that leaves a well-liked muscle tender for weeks. Chances are these irritants, on their own, would not be considered worthy of special design attention. Are they symptomatic of systematic problems? From an outsider’s perspective—and designers are still outsiders—the sys- tem that connects these particular incidents may not readily disclose itself. However, once inside the health-industrial complex, significant design con- cerns will show up that overwhelm these trivial annoyances. Do not lose sight of the seemingly minor inconveniences; frustration is one of the lead- ing causes of innovation. Frustrations with wayfinding, communications, or documentation may reveal underlying systemic causes that have been completely overlooked. If your intention is to apply design thinking and skills to make a differ- ence in healthcare, start with your own history and perspectives. We are all health seekers. Uncover your personal interests and biases, your beliefs about life and health, and your positions on scientific evidence and the art of medicine. Unlike other fields of design and management, personal experi- ences and common sense may harness your motivation and inform a sense of genuine empathy. Designers and researchers work with and deeply appreciate the abstract— our building blocks include information, artifacts, interaction, aesthetics, methods, templates, personas, and so on. The healthcare field, which has become automated and intellectual, is centered on embodied subjects— people with health concerns. Healthcare itself is a hands-on practice of continual and practical problem solving. In few other worlds of design do we find such a difference between our maps (our products) and the territory. Design Thinking in Service and Policy Sectors People working on the front lines of healthcare are overloaded with well- intentioned information services. Research has identified the prevalence of platform fatigue, when busy professionals become weary of maintain- ing an institution’s multiple systems for patient records, billing, orders, and decision support, each of which requires access, password control, login sequences, and learning a new interface. Future healthcare problems are not solved by the introduction of a better user experience.
20 Chapter 1 Scalable services—service systems—require rethinking IT, not just as an integrating resource in a whole system but as a team player that is as trusted as a human member of the clinical team. Clearly, IT has not achieved this level of reliability and resilience yet. The implementation of IT “solutions” should never become a default management decision. Multidisciplinary clinical service design teams are called for to determine the appropriate allocation of technological, organizational, and individual role functions in care service systems. At the very least, a regular practice of critical evalua- tions can assess that care provision is not impeded or complicated. The societal waves of change happening now are driving the need for bet- ter design. We should expect a historically large shift from other fields into healthcare, due to the near-term political and institutional attention on implementing electronic patient records. Driven by the push of the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in the United States, and the general mandate of ready funding for tech- nology, health centers continue to rush to implement and integrate medical records, hospital management, billing, and insurance in massive institu- tional databases. These systems are complex, unwieldy, and at some point, necessary. Yet their interfaces are intended for practitioners working in hec- tic care settings who usually consider computers an administrative chore. Outside of the United States, healthcare requires a complete rethinking of our experience with health services, providers, costs, and innovation. Whereas developed nations may be faced with an overabundance of choice, emerging economies require consideration of how design can help the very basic outcomes of healthcare services. In the United States, we expect an exchange of ideas and methods between the consumer and professional sec- tors. In global healthcare, we cannot expect to transfer knowledge and the easy fixes learned from North American successes. In developing nations, culturally appropriate innovation might require a integration of traditional practices with guidance from mainstream healthcare procedures and medi- cations. Automation may be a helpful but secondary concern, with health centers enabled by off-the-shelf software and sufficiently reliable computers, while allowing for unreliable grid power and Internet access. We might also acknowledge how the technological imperative is implied in innovation thinking. Not all “systems” in healthcare are computer-based; the technical work of care is performed as a hands-on human process. Diag- nosis, treatment, procedures, aftercare, and care planning are not (yet) automated, and the human-to-human relationship of care never will be. Yet healthcare process and procedure generates a massive amount of data helpful in analysis and management of services. The allocation of human and automated tasks remains a moving target as IT and sensors expand the possibilities of public and individual care, and the designers of service and
Design as Caregiving 21 experience have rights to the negotiable intersection between human and information. Unfortunately for interaction and UX designers, the healthcare IT market has not matured to the point where UX factors significantly affect purchase and implementation decisions. We are only now getting a hearing, and with the rapid pace of newly installed databases, we may be appearing on the scene much too late. Yet these systems still need our help. Wicked Problems in Healthcare Design Healthcare is not only a “mess,” it technically entails many wicked prob- lems—complexities with no clear and immediate resolution. Wicked problems are generally large in scale, affecting unknown numbers of people with unknown levels of risk and effect. They include most persistent social and environmental issues that have emerged from multiple root causes over time. In truly wicked problems, original causes (such as bad regulatory deci- sions) evolve into new effects (corrupt agencies and regimes), interventions have no testable solution (How do you determine whether the situation has been resolved?), and the very acknowledgment of a “problem” results from the earlier effects of embedded, interconnected, complicated problems. Systems scientist Horst Rittel reserved the term for systemic social problems that defy analytical problem solving, are not understandable by any single individual, and have no single best solution.5 In healthcare, wicked problems are the most critical (and costly) issues, such as aging populations, multiple chronic diseases, interacting conditions in persons living longer, and rapid changes required of practice based on constant updates to (and conflicts in) research. They occur at a scale that can have devastating financial and soci- etal impacts that increase over time. Reaching agreement on how to solve these problems remains difficult, but they also require action in the face of incomplete knowledge and limited foresight, meaning that we often do our best and then live with the consequences. Problems that do not meet the definition of wicked are commonly framed as simple, complicated, or complex. Simple problems are those situations with a clear cause and a reliable response in most cases. In healthcare, these include well-understood routine conditions such as broken bones and lacer- ations. Many more health concerns are complicated, requiring iterative tests and observations. Surgical operations are complicated, with many mov- ing parts and many ways to fail. Complex problems are interconnected and entangled issues with uncertain outcomes. Chronic, interacting diseases are complex, such as asthma, allergies, and many cancers or autoimmune dis- eases. Wicked problems are complex problems with uncertain interventions as well as uncertain outcomes. These can range from healthcare system reform to facial pain management.
22 Chapter 1 Design Strategies Design strategy is necessary to align any radical innovation with organizational purposes. A design strategy, spanning every role from com- munications to services, reframes the meaning of change to stakeholders, and creatively aligns a new concept with implementation. A design strategy determines whether managers will risk changing the meaning of health- care services or merely adapt technology to current practices. Because the tradition of professional care has become so culturally embedded, few insti- tutions risk taking the road to radical meaning change. Over the last two decades, a small number of progressive frameworks for design thinking have been found applicable for the selection of strategic design options. Design theorist Richard Buchanan’s orders of design is an influential schema for problem framing, as well a definitive reference to the contemporary view of design thinking.6 He proposed four placements that designers employ to compose integrated design strategies across four classes of design targets: • Symbolic and visual communications • Artifacts and material objects • Activities and organized services • Complex systems and environments Buchanan observed that designers draw upon placements as ways to cre- atively reconfigure a design concept in a new situation. All designers build their own vocabularies, as well as a set of skills and styles applicable in their domains of work. Rather than following a fixed series of orders to reach an outcome, the placements are a strategy for creative invention. An infor- mation design problem for a website might lead to a discovery of a better wayfinding information scheme by adopting the new Web information cat- egories and shifting across types from one placement to another. We can find a range of problem types in every healthcare sector, but things become complex when defining problem boundaries. An individual health problem can be viewed as a matter of self-care or as interacting with multiple institutional systems. Where we draw the line matters. Designers and strate- gists Garry VanPatter and Elizabeth Pastor defined design geographies—four essentially different design domains, Design 1.0 through 4.0, that represent an evolution of design practice, research, and education to develop new knowl- edge bases necessary for increasing complexity (Figure 1.1).7
Design as Caregiving 23 The stages are not replacements of former paradigms (as in Health 2.0). They are based on observations from practice settings, and their “proof” is not theoretical but comes from applica- tion. Managing complexity is not just a matter of increasing scope. Different skills and methods apply in each domain that are generally transfer- able up, but not down, from one level to the next. The four stages embody design processes for the following contexts: 1. Artifacts and communications: design as making, or traditional design practice 2. Products and services: design for value creation (including service design, holistic product innovation, multichannel, and user experience), or design as integrating 3. Organizational transformation (complex, bounded by business or strategy): design for transforming work practices, strategies, and organizational structures 4. Social transformation (complex, unbounded): design for transforming social systems, policies, and communities Because of the magnitude of complexity differ- ence in each stage, they are not interchangeable. In any given design process, the skills and orien- tations from all levels might be employed. Each higher phase is inclusive of the lower levels as the problem complexity expands from Design 1.0 to 4.0. An organizational process (D3.0) can design communications in line with the quality of the best D1.0 work. The process itself follows the methods and practices of a D2.0 service. The four domains differ in their strategy, inten- tion, and outcomes. Each requires skill and coordination of distinct methods, design prac- tices, types of collaboration, and stakeholder participation. These are not fixed requirements but merely entry criteria for performing in the capacity of that “geography” in practice. The domains are described as follows (Figure 1.2): Scale increases DESIGN 4.0 Social Transformation Design DESIGN 3.0 Organizational Transformation Design DESIGN 2.0 Product / Service Design DESIGN 1.0 Traditional Design Figure 1.1 Mapping design process to chal- lenge complexity. (Courtesy of Humantific)
24 Chapter 1 Focus on change-making Health policy Healthcare affiliations Social innovation Multistakeholder networks Participatory action research Focus on change-making Organizational processes Business system design Participatory leadership Clinical practice and research Cross-function action teams Business, process, and practice innovation Focus on differencing User experience design Service design Product design Informatics and decision support Product team collaboration Focus on differencing Consumer and institutional products Communications, websites Promotion and advertising Brands and identities Patient literature DESIGN 4.0 Social Transformation Design DESIGN 3.0 Organizational Transformation Design DESIGN 2.0 Product / Service Design DESIGN 1.0 Traditional Design Figure 1.2 Design 1.0–4.0 approaches in complexity scale.
Another Random Scribd Document with Unrelated Content
»Sie wollen also gehen?« rief Doña Mercedes aus und näherte sich der Seña Frasquita, ohne sich um Don Eugenio zu kümmern. »So gehen Sie also ohne Sorge, der Skandal wird keine Folgen haben. Rosa, leuchte den Herrschaften, sie wollen ja schon gehen. Geht mit Gott, Tio Lucas!« »O nein!« schrie Don Eugenio, indem er sich hineinmischte. »Tio Lucas wird nicht fortgehen. Tio Lucas wird so lange im Arrest bleiben, bis ich die volle Wahrheit weiß. Halloh, Alguacilen! Im Namen des Königs!« Nicht einer der Polizeidiener gehorchte Don Eugenio. Alle blickten die Corregidora an. »Nun, Mann, mache Platz!« fügte diese hinzu, indem sie ihn fast umstieß und sich von allen mit der größten Feinheit verabschiedete, das heißt, den Kopf leicht zur Seite geneigt, ergriff sie ihr Kleid mit den Fingerspitzen und neigte sich anmutig, bis sie die Modereverenz jener Zeit ausführte, die man la pompa[9] nannte. »Aber ich... aber du... aber wir... aber die da,« murmelte der arme Alte noch immer, zog seine Frau am Kleide und störte ihre bestangefangenen Verbeugungen. Vergebliches Bemühen! Niemand kümmerte sich um Sr. Gnaden. Als alle fortgegangen und die entzweiten Gatten im Salon allein waren, geruhte die Corregidora endlich im Tone einer Czarin aller Reussen, welche über einen gefallenen Minister den Blitzstrahl der ewigen Verbannung nach Sibirien schlendert, zu ihrem Gatten zu sagen: »Und lebtest du tausend Jahre, so sollst du doch nie erfahren, was in dieser Nacht in meinem Schlafzimmer vorgefallen ist. Wenn du darin gewesen wärest, wie es natürlich war, so brauchtest du niemand danach zu fragen. Was mich anbetrifft, so habe und werde ich nie einen Grund haben, der mich nötigen könnte, es zu enthüllen, dazu verachte ich dich zu sehr, und wenn du nicht der
Vater meiner Kinder wärest, so würde ich dich jetzt vom Balkon herunterstürzen ... Und hiermit gute Nacht, Caballero!« Als die Corregidora diese Worte ausgesprochen hatte, die der Corregidor anhörte, ohne auch nur mit einer Wimper zu zucken (denn wenn er allein war, wagte er es nicht, gegen seine Frau aufzutreten), ging sie in das Schlafzimmer, schloß die Thüren hinter sich zu, und der arme Mann blieb mitten im Saal aufgepflanzt stehen und murmelte mit einem beispiellosen Cynismus zwischen den Gaumen — Zähne hatte er ja nicht: »Gott sei Dank! Ich glaubte nicht, daß es so gut enden würde... Garduña wird mir eine andere suchen.«
36. Schluß, Moral und Epilog. Fröhlich zwitschernd grüßten die Vögel den Morgen, als Tio Lucas und die Seña Frasquita die Stadt verließen, um sich nach der Mühle zu begeben. Die Gatten gingen zu Fuß, vor ihnen her trabten die beiden zusammengekoppelten Esel. »Am Sonntag mußt du zur Beichte gehen,« sagte die Müllerin zu ihrem Mann, »denn du mußt dich von all den schlechten Meinungen und verbrecherischen Absichten dieser Nacht reinigen.« »Da hast du einen guten Gedanken,« antwortete der Müller. »Aber du mußt mir dafür auch einen Gefallen thun und die Matratzen und das Bettzeug unseres Bettes den Armen geben und alles neu anschaffen. Ich lege mich nicht wieder dahin, wo dies giftige Gewürm geschwitzt hat.« »Nenne ihn nicht, Lucas!« versetzte die Seña Frasquita. »Aber um von etwas anderem zu sprechen. Ich möchte dich noch um einen anderen Gefallen bitten...« »Bitte nur.« »Im künftigen Sommer wirst du mich nach Solan de Cabras bringen, um eine Badekur zu gebrauchen.« »Warum?« »Um zu sehen, ob wir Kinder bekommen werden.« »Das ist eine sehr glückliche Idee. Wenn Gott uns das Leben schenkt, sollst du dorthin gehen.«
Sie langten bei der Mühle an, gerade als die Sonne, ohne noch aufgegangen zu sein, die Gipfel des Gebirges vergoldete. — — — Zur größten Überraschung der Gatten, die nach einer so ärgerlichen Szene, wie die der vergangenen Nacht, keine Besuche von hohen Herrschaften mehr erwarteten, versammelten sich am Nachmittage mehr Personen denn je. Der ehrwürdige Prälat, viele Domherren, der Lehrer der Rechtswissenschaft, zwei Priore von Mönchsklöstern und verschiedene andere Personen, die, wie man bald erfuhr, Se. Hochwürden zusammenberufen hatte, füllten den ganzen Platz vor dem Hause. Nur der Corregidor fehlte. Als alle versammelt waren, ergriff der Herr Bischof das Wort und sagte, daß, gerade weil gewisse Dinge in jenem Hause vorgefallen wären, seine Domherren und er wie früher kommen würden, damit weder die braven Müllersleute, noch die übrigen gegenwärtigen Personen vom öffentlichen Tadel betroffen würden, den nur jener verdiente, welcher durch sein rohes Betragen eine so gesittete, anständige Gesellschaft entweiht hatte. Er ermahnte die Seña Frasquita väterlich, fürderhin weniger herausfordernd und verführerisch in ihren Worten und Bewegungen zu sein, die Arme mehr bedeckt und den Ausschnitt des Kleides etwas höher zu tragen, riet dem Tio Lucas, seinen Vorgesetzten gegenüber mehr Uneigennützigkeit, größere Zurückhaltung und weniger Unbescheidenheit zu zeigen, gab dann schließlich seinen Segen, und da er an jenem Tage nicht fastete, würde er mit vielem Vergnügen ein paar Trauben essen. Dasselbe meinten alle, nämlich das letztere — und der Weinstock erzitterte den ganzen Nachmittag. — Der Müller schätzte den Konsum an Weintrauben auf zwei Arrobas.[10] — — Ungefähr drei Jahre lang dauerten diese angenehmen Zusammenkünfte, als wider alles Erwarten die Heere Napoleons in Spanien eindrangen und der Freiheitskrieg begann.
Der Herr Bischof, der Magistrat und der Pönitentiar starben im Jahre 1808, und der Advokat und die übrigen Teilnehmer in den Jahren 9, 10, 11 und 12, weil sie den Anblick der Franzosen, Polen und anderer Raubtiere nicht ertragen konnten, welche in das Land einfielen und sogar im Presbyterium der Kirchen, während der Militärmesse, ihre Pfeifen rauchten! Der Corregidor, der nie wieder nach der Mühle kam, wurde durch einen französischen Marschall ersetzt und starb im Kerker in Madrid, weil er sich auch nicht einen Augenblick, zu seiner Ehre sei's gesagt, mit der Fremdherrschaft einverstanden erklären wollte. Doña Mercedes hat sich nicht wieder verheiratet und erzog ihre Kinder ganz ausgezeichnet. Im Alter zog sie sich in ein Kloster zurück und starb dort im Geruche der Heiligkeit. Garduña wurde französiert. Señor Juan Lopez kämpfte im Guerillakriege als Anführer und starb, gleich seinem Alguacil, in der berühmten Schlacht bei Baza, nachdem er sehr viele Franzosen getötet hatte. Zum Schluß: Tio Lucas und die Seña Frasquita, obgleich sie keine Kinder bekamen, trotzdem sie nach Solan de Cabras gegangen waren und viele Gelübde abgelegt hatten, liebten sich immer auf ihre Weise und erreichten ein hohes Alter. Sie sahen den Absolutismus in den Jahren 1812 und 1820 dahinsinken und ihn 1814 und 1823 wieder erscheinen, bis endlich nach dem Tode des Absoluten Königs die Konstitution eingeführt wurde; und sie schlummerten zu einem besseren Leben hinüber gerade beim Ausbruch des siebenjährigen Bürgerkrieges, ohne daß die damals schon allgemein getragenen Cylinderhüte j e n e Z e i t e n bei ihnen in Vergessenheit geraten ließen, welchen als Symbol diente — d e r D r e i s p i t z. E n d e .
Fußnoten: [1] Zwei Neuntel von allen Zehnten, die der König bekommt. [2] Suppe mit Gemüse und Fleisch. [3] Gleich nach der Suppe zu essen. [4] Volkstümlich für Señora Frasquita, Frau Fränzchen = Franziska. [5] Abendgesellschaft, Versammlung. [6] Que Dios guarde, den Gott erhalte, übliche Formel. [7] Es handelt sich hier um ein unübersetzbares Wortspiel zwischen males und animales. [8] »Ave, reinste Maria! Halb Eins und schönes Wetter!« Dies der gewöhnliche Ruf der Nachtwächter, die, weil die Nächte meist heiter (sereno) sind, hiervon auch vielleicht den Namen serenos erhalten haben. Regnet es, so fügen sie der Angabe der Zeit y lloviendo (und es regnet) hinzu. [9] pompa ist Pracht, Prunk, aber auch der Bausch, welchen die Frauenkleider beim Niederbeugen machen. [10] Eine Arroba gleich 11½ Kilogramm.
Notizen des Bearbeiters Hinzugefügt: Inhaltsverzeichnis mit Links Das Umschlagbild wurde vom Bearbeiter gestaltet und in die Public Domain eingebracht.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DER DREISPITZ *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
Welcome to our website – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookultra.com

More Related Content

PDF
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
bybdamdinrx800
 
PDF
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
byradicsbkar
 
PDF
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
bykociofeuwo
 
PDF
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
byzzarossa50
 
PPTX
European Book Launch - RSD Symposium, Oslo
bydesignforcare
 
PDF
Healthcare Infrastructure Summit: Human-Centred Services Design
bydesignforcare
 
PDF
Design for Care O'Reilly webcast
bydesignforcare
 
PDF
Design for community care
bydesignforcare
 
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
bybdamdinrx800
 
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
byradicsbkar
 
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
bykociofeuwo
 
Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones
byzzarossa50
 
European Book Launch - RSD Symposium, Oslo
bydesignforcare
 
Healthcare Infrastructure Summit: Human-Centred Services Design
bydesignforcare
 
Design for Care O'Reilly webcast
bydesignforcare
 
Design for community care
bydesignforcare
 

Similar to Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones

PDF
How to care ? (Medlove - Berlin, November 23, 2012)
bySylvain Cottong
 
PDF
Medlove 2012 Berlin: Design for Community Care
byPeter Jones
 
PDF
Empathy for the Content - WIAD DC
bydesignforcare
 
PDF
Service Design Impact Report - Health Sector
byEmma Patel
 
PDF
Public Health Booster 22.10.2015 / Melanie Wendland, M4ID
byUpgraded - Health Startup Association of Finland
 
PDF
Service Design of Care - OCADU Workshop
bydesignforcare
 
PDF
Designing Empathy and Simplicity: The Future of Healthcare
byMark Breitenberg
 
PDF
Managing Healthcare Innovation as a Design Process
bydesignforcare
 
PDF
Design Thinking In Healthcare From Problem To Innovative Solutions Anni Pakar...
byumileoatis1q
 
PDF
Conversations in Healthcare Service Design
bySystemic Design Association (SDA)
 
PDF
Nie RSD8 Design for psychological well being
bySystemic Design Association (SDA)
 
PDF
HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE DESIGNED IN DUNDEE 
NETWORKING EVENT
byOpen Change
 
PPTX
Week 1 - Virtual Sprint School PPT
byDesign Lab
 
PDF
Digital Health & Wellness Summit @ Mobile World Congress 2016
by3GDR
 
PPTX
Design thinking emphasizes empathy, crea
byhimansai21
 
PDF
HXR 2016: Designing Within a Hospital System: Challenges and Strategies
byHxRefactored
 
PDF
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
byPeter Jones
 
PDF
SXSW 2016 Health & MedTech
byAnthony Lazzaro
 
PDF
ehealth week 2012
byMONDRAGON Health
 
PDF
Critical Issues For The Development Of Sustainable Ehealth Solutions 1st Edit...
bygiratmojzer
 
How to care ? (Medlove - Berlin, November 23, 2012)
bySylvain Cottong
 
Medlove 2012 Berlin: Design for Community Care
byPeter Jones
 
Empathy for the Content - WIAD DC
bydesignforcare
 
Service Design Impact Report - Health Sector
byEmma Patel
 
Public Health Booster 22.10.2015 / Melanie Wendland, M4ID
byUpgraded - Health Startup Association of Finland
 
Service Design of Care - OCADU Workshop
bydesignforcare
 
Designing Empathy and Simplicity: The Future of Healthcare
byMark Breitenberg
 
Managing Healthcare Innovation as a Design Process
bydesignforcare
 
Design Thinking In Healthcare From Problem To Innovative Solutions Anni Pakar...
byumileoatis1q
 
Conversations in Healthcare Service Design
bySystemic Design Association (SDA)
 
Nie RSD8 Design for psychological well being
bySystemic Design Association (SDA)
 
HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE DESIGNED IN DUNDEE 
NETWORKING EVENT
byOpen Change
 
Week 1 - Virtual Sprint School PPT
byDesign Lab
 
Digital Health & Wellness Summit @ Mobile World Congress 2016
by3GDR
 
Design thinking emphasizes empathy, crea
byhimansai21
 
HXR 2016: Designing Within a Hospital System: Challenges and Strategies
byHxRefactored
 
Designing the Systems Sciences - AHO, Oslo, Oct 2012
byPeter Jones
 
SXSW 2016 Health & MedTech
byAnthony Lazzaro
 
ehealth week 2012
byMONDRAGON Health
 
Critical Issues For The Development Of Sustainable Ehealth Solutions 1st Edit...
bygiratmojzer
 

Recently uploaded

PDF
AI and ICT for Teaching and Learning, Induction-cum-Training Programme, 5th 8...
byProf. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
 
PPTX
Time Series Analysis - Least Square Method Fitting a Linear Trend Equation
bySundar B N
 
PPTX
Screening and Selecting Studies for Systematic Review Dr Reginald Quansah
bySystematic Reviews Network (SRN)
 
PDF
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা - ২০২৫ with Bookmark.pdf
bytanbircox UJS App
 
PPTX
RENAL DISEASES IN CHILDREN PPT BY DIVYAJYOTHI THOTA
bydivyajyothithota03
 
PPTX
kklklklklklklklk;lkpoipor[3rjdkjoe99759893058085
bypreetheshparmar
 
PDF
Difference Between BJT and MOSFET: A Comparative Analysis”
byGS Virdi
 
PPTX
Frontend ticket creation in odoo 18.2 _Odoo 19
byCeline George
 
PPTX
Comprehensive Lecture on Power Supply Design: Rectifiers and Voltage Regulators
byGS Virdi
 
PPTX
Masterclass on Cybercrime, Scams & Safety Hacks.pptx
bykalkidirwhytap
 
PDF
Gemini Study Jams 2025 - GDGoC FPTU event
byminhtrietgect
 
PDF
“Nanomaterials and Their Classification: A Fundamental Introduction”
byGS Virdi
 
PPTX
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DOSAGE FORMS picture.pptx
bymenaga ravichandar
 
PPTX
Declaration of Helsinki Basic principles in medical research ppt.pptx
byRanikonde
 
PPTX
ATTENTION - PART 1.pptx cognitive processes -For B.Sc I Sem By Mrs.Shilpa Hot...
bySHILPA HOTAKAR
 
PPTX
Time Series Analysis - Weighted (Unequal) Moving Average Method
bySundar B N
 
PPTX
Time Series Analysis - Method of Simple Moving Average 3 Year and 4 Year Movi...
bySundar B N
 
PPTX
SEMESTER 5 UNIT- 1 Difference of Children and adults.pptx
bysachin7989
 
PDF
Digital Journalism Ethics 2025 materi for Regulation & Ethic Media
byAdePutraTunggali
 
PDF
DIFFRENCE BETWEEN SOCIETY AND COMMUNITY.pdf
byJhasketan Kuanar
 
AI and ICT for Teaching and Learning, Induction-cum-Training Programme, 5th 8...
byProf. Vinod Kumar Kanvaria
 
Time Series Analysis - Least Square Method Fitting a Linear Trend Equation
bySundar B N
 
Screening and Selecting Studies for Systematic Review Dr Reginald Quansah
bySystematic Reviews Network (SRN)
 
বাংলাদেশ অর্থনৈতিক সমীক্ষা - ২০২৫ with Bookmark.pdf
bytanbircox UJS App
 
RENAL DISEASES IN CHILDREN PPT BY DIVYAJYOTHI THOTA
bydivyajyothithota03
 
kklklklklklklklk;lkpoipor[3rjdkjoe99759893058085
bypreetheshparmar
 
Difference Between BJT and MOSFET: A Comparative Analysis”
byGS Virdi
 
Frontend ticket creation in odoo 18.2 _Odoo 19
byCeline George
 
Comprehensive Lecture on Power Supply Design: Rectifiers and Voltage Regulators
byGS Virdi
 
Masterclass on Cybercrime, Scams & Safety Hacks.pptx
bykalkidirwhytap
 
Gemini Study Jams 2025 - GDGoC FPTU event
byminhtrietgect
 
“Nanomaterials and Their Classification: A Fundamental Introduction”
byGS Virdi
 
DIFFERENT TYPES OF DOSAGE FORMS picture.pptx
bymenaga ravichandar
 
Declaration of Helsinki Basic principles in medical research ppt.pptx
byRanikonde
 
ATTENTION - PART 1.pptx cognitive processes -For B.Sc I Sem By Mrs.Shilpa Hot...
bySHILPA HOTAKAR
 
Time Series Analysis - Weighted (Unequal) Moving Average Method
bySundar B N
 
Time Series Analysis - Method of Simple Moving Average 3 Year and 4 Year Movi...
bySundar B N
 
SEMESTER 5 UNIT- 1 Difference of Children and adults.pptx
bysachin7989
 
Digital Journalism Ethics 2025 materi for Regulation & Ethic Media
byAdePutraTunggali
 
DIFFRENCE BETWEEN SOCIETY AND COMMUNITY.pdf
byJhasketan Kuanar
 

Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones

  • 1.
    Visit https://ebookultra.com todownload the full version and explore more ebooks Design For Care Innovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones _____ Click the link below to download _____ https://ebookultra.com/download/design-for-care- innovating-healthcare-experience-1st-edition-edition- peter-jones/ Explore and download more ebooks at ebookultra.com
  • 2.
    Here are somesuggested products you might be interested in. Click the link to download Architecture and Movement The Dynamic Experience of Buildings and Landscapes 1. publ. Edition Peter Blundell Jones https://ebookultra.com/download/architecture-and-movement-the-dynamic- experience-of-buildings-and-landscapes-1-publ-edition-peter-blundell- jones/ Future Healthcare Design 1st Edition Sumita Singha https://ebookultra.com/download/future-healthcare-design-1st-edition- sumita-singha/ Storytelling for User Experience Crafting Stories for Better Design 1st Edition Whitney Quesenbery https://ebookultra.com/download/storytelling-for-user-experience- crafting-stories-for-better-design-1st-edition-whitney-quesenbery/ Mould Design Guide 1st Edition Jones https://ebookultra.com/download/mould-design-guide-1st-edition-jones/
  • 3.
    Disinfection in Healthcare3rd Edition Peter Hoffman https://ebookultra.com/download/disinfection-in-healthcare-3rd- edition-peter-hoffman/ Practice Professional Development Planning A Guide For Primary Care Radcliffe Primary Care 1st Edition Peter Wilcock https://ebookultra.com/download/practice-professional-development- planning-a-guide-for-primary-care-radcliffe-primary-care-1st-edition- peter-wilcock/ Mobile Interaction Design Matt Jones https://ebookultra.com/download/mobile-interaction-design-matt-jones/ Critical Care 1st Edition Peter Papadakos https://ebookultra.com/download/critical-care-1st-edition-peter- papadakos/ Paediatric Intensive Care 1st Edition Peter Barry https://ebookultra.com/download/paediatric-intensive-care-1st-edition- peter-barry/
  • 5.
    Design For CareInnovating Healthcare Experience 1st Edition Edition Peter Jones Digital Instant Download Author(s): Peter Jones ISBN(s): 9781933820231, 1933820233 Edition: 1st Edition File Details: PDF, 5.42 MB Year: 2013 Language: english
  • 7.
    Rosenfeld Media Brooklyn, NewYork Peter H. Jones Design for Care Innovating Healthcare Experience
  • 8.
    Design for Care:Innovating Healthcare Experience By Peter H. Jones Rosenfeld Media, LLC 457 Third Street, #4R Brooklyn, New York 11215 USA On the Web: www.rosenfeldmedia.com Please send errors to: [email protected] Publisher: Louis Rosenfeld Developmental Editor: JoAnn Simony Interior Layout Tech: Danielle Foster Cover Design: The Heads of State Indexer: Nancy Guenther Proofreader: Kathy Brock Artwork Designer: James Caldwell, 418QE © 2013 Peter H. Jones All Rights Reserved ISBN: 1-933820-23-3 ISBN-13: 978-1-933820-23-1 LCCN: 2012950698 Printed and bound in the United States of America
  • 9.
    Dedication To Patricia, myown favorite writer, who kept me healthy while writing for three years To my mother, Betsy, whose courage and insight in her recent passing from a rare cancer gives me empathy for the personhood of every patient And to my father, Hayward, whose perpetual resilience shines through after surviving two cancers and living life well
  • 10.
    iv How to UseThis Book Design for Care fuses design practice, systems thinking, and practi- cal healthcare research to help designers create innovative and effective responses to emerging and unforeseen problems. It covers design practices and methods for innovation in patient-centered healthcare services. Design for Care offers best and next practices, and industrial-strength meth- ods from practicing designers and design researchers in the field. Case studies illustrate current health design projects from leading firms, ser- vices, and institutions. Design methods and their applications illustrate how design makes a difference in healthcare today. My hope is that you will adapt the lessons, methods, and insights in this book to a product, organization, or service system in your own work. Who Should Read This Book? Design for Care was written for three audiences: designers and design researchers in healthcare fields; healthcare professionals and clinical prac- tice leaders; and service, product, and innovation managers in companies serving healthcare. Healthcare is complex, and learning even one vertical slice of a vast field is a significant undertaking. Learning and working across a second sector is a career challenge. Working effectively across sectors is unheard of. Design- ers, researchers, and practitioners across all three audiences typically work within a single sector—for a hospital, an information technology (IT) com- pany, a medical products company, or a service provider. This book aims to inform design professionals across sectors (and design disciplines) and to contribute to their ability to design for the continuous life cycle of patient- centered service experiences. To ensure quality and manage costs across the whole system, a holistic view of healthcare and design is necessary. For service designers, product, and innovation managers, I cover the most compelling information and service opportunities in healthcare with case studies and informed research. There are few guides for product managers in healthcare. Although this book does not specifically focus on product and project management, it weaves together many missing pieces overlooked in product and service innovation. Most care providers work in one sector as well, deeply focused in a practice and an organization. This book helps inform clinical leaders of innovation methods, and encourages their understanding of the value of design think- ing in health services, informatics, and organizational practice. Effective
  • 11.
    How to UseThis Book v and ethical system design is not just making things work better for end users. Design leadership requires a collaboration at the practice level to contribute organizationally and systemically. I introduce health leaders to design and systems thinking approaches to help them innovate patient- centered service. With the increased focus on improving the user experience in health websites and services, many designers new to the healthcare field will be learning about these users while on the job. Design for Care explores cases and methods for bettering human experience on both sides of the care expe- rience, for both the patient and the care providers. It speaks to both new and experienced practitioners, and should be especially useful for those in tran- sition between fields. For healthcare providers and those already managing projects “inside the system,” adaptation of successful methods and patterns is encouraged between different cases and uses. What’s in This Book? Part I: Rethinking Care and Its Consumers The three chapters in Part I focus on the healthcare consumer. Chapter 1: Design as Caregiving presents a perspective on design as a way to provide care and addresses the problem of the fragmentation of design practice and engagement across the different healthcare sectors. Chapter 2: Co-creating Care focuses on design for health information seeking as a way of co-creating value in immediate care situations. Chapter 3: Seeking Health examines per- sonal health decision making. Part II: Rethinking Patients The two chapters in Part II make the transition from health seeker in a con- sumer context to a patient-oriented perspective. Chapter 4: Design for Patient Agency presents agency and connectivity as alternative design fac- tors to balance the traditional healthcare default perspective of patiency, which often treats patients as passive participants in their own care process. Chapter 5: Patient-Centered Service Design presents a systems approach to service design, and attempts to resolve differing concepts found across health service approaches. Human-centered approaches to service design focus on the primacy of patient experience, improving the touchpoints of care along the continuum of service responsibility.
  • 12.
    vi How toUse This Book Part III: Rethinking Care Systems The four chapters in Part III look at care-centered service design in the com- plex systems of clinical healthcare and information-based work practices. Chapter 6: Design at the Point of Care is a service design approach to clinical decision making, medical education, and the four stages of clinical service design. The focus on medical education connects physician training, clinical work, and the care organization as designable services in a whole system. Chapter 7: Designing Healthy Information Technology looks at health IT as both innovation and system infrastructure at both the enter- prise and practice levels. Lessons learned from electronic medical records and meaningful use provide a context for designing improved IT in clinical practice. Chapter 8: Systemic Design for Healthcare Innovation devel- ops a systems thinking approach to designing service and organizational innovation in healthcare. Chapter 9: Designing Healthcare Futures pres- ents methods and models for reimagining healthcare service from near- and long-term future perspectives, to enable strategic and socially responsive innovation. What Comes with This Book? You’ll find additional content in this book’s companion websites (http://designforcare.com and www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/ design-for-care/). Its diagrams and other illustrations are available under a Creative Commons license (when possible) for you to download and include in your own presentations. You can find these on Flickr at www.flickr.com/photos/rosenfeldmedia/sets/.
  • 13.
    vii Frequently Asked Questions Who arethe stakeholders for this book? The book is written to ultimately help health seekers—the patients and peo- ple who seek information, health services, and care from today’s fragmented healthcare systems. We all rely on healthcare at some point, for ourselves and those we care for; therefore, everyone can be a stakeholder. “We” are the user experience and service designers in healthcare, care pro- viders improving healthcare service, and product and project managers in health industries. We are the ones who will ultimately employ design in healthcare transformation. Other stakeholders include design and medical educators, management of hospitals and companies providing healthcare applications, and policy makers. How do you resolve the different terminology used in different design disciplines? Throughout the book, references are made to concepts and terms that have distinct meanings in their own fields. Because the book presents a convergence of design methods and human research across the sectors of healthcare, a collision of perspectives is to be expected. The design disci- plines have variations in design practice, research methods, and artifacts that cannot be resolved in one book. Research and medicine are divided by discipline, method, and legacy. The intention of this book is to raise crucial issues of which designers should be aware. The common bond among all these disciplines is the compelling requirement to solve complex problems in effective and sustainable ways. See page 12. What is health seeking? The health seeker is any person aware of his or her motivation to improve his or her health, whether sick or not. Health seeking is the natural pursuit of one’s appropriate balance of well-being, the continuous moving toward what we call “normal” health. For some, normal is just not feeling any symptoms; for others, it may be achieving the physical performance of an Olympian. See page 15. What is Health 2.0 and Medicine 2.0, and is there a difference? These designations are applied to coherent trends in Internet-enabled IT in healthcare and medical innovation. The implication of the release number
  • 14.
    viii Frequently AskedQuestions “2.0” signals consensus among IT vendors and innovators that a technol- ogy regime shift is being organized, similar to Web 2.0. Health 2.0 ranges from the conceptual shift in the management of patient care using online technology, to healthcare IT start-ups and Web services for health manage- ment. Medicine 2.0 was inspired by the shift in IT and data resources from academic medicine and biomedical sciences. See page 100. How are design and medicine alike? These two fields are similar in many ways. Both are performed as an expert- informed skilled practice that is learned by doing. And both are informed by observation and feedback, by evidence of their beneficial effects. Both dis- ciplines are motivated by a deep desire to help people manage and improve their lives, individually and culturally. Modern medicine is guided by sci- entific inquiry much more than design, but then designers and engineers in healthcare often have scientific backgrounds. In medicine, evidence of outcome is gathered by measures of health and mortality, controlled experi- ments, and validated in peer-reviewed research. For clinical practice and organizational change, however, validation is often based on the social proof of adoption in practice. Design interventions in healthcare are often assessed by the analysis of empirical evidence, but in few cases would exper- imental validation be appropriate for service or interaction design. Different evaluation methods are valid in their contexts, a proposition that may not yet be acceptable across healthcare fields. See Chapter 6. Why do you say “There is no user in healthcare”? The designation of “user” privileges the use of a particular system and its functions, which promotes a language of efficiency based on “user tasks.” It biases design toward optimizing for a specific set of use cases based on a strong representation of a primary user of IT. Healthcare is a huge social system with many participants and roles dedicated toward the recovery of individual and social health. Few of these roles actually require IT for their performance. A user-centered perspective risks isolating a single aspect of use and interaction, when nearly everything involves more than one of the primary participants: consumers, patients, and clinicians. If we take an empathic view, it becomes clear that users and even patients are names of impersonal convenience. The term health seeker is proposed as an unbiased way of understanding the person seeking care as a motivated actor making sense of a complicated system to achieve health goals. See page 13.
  • 15.
    ix Contents How to UseThis Book iv Frequently Asked Questions vii Foreword xiii Introduction xv Part I: Rethinking Care and Its Consumers Chapter 1 Design as Caregiving 7 Can Healthcare Innovate Itself? 8 Are There Users of Care? 12 A Caring Design Ethic 15 The Design Thinking Divide 17 Wicked Problems in Healthcare Design 21 Chapter 2 Co-creating Care 31 Elena’s Story: The Family Caregiver 32 Infocare 34 Health Information Design Is Personal 36 Health Search Behavior 39 Case Study: WebMD— Health Information Experience 42 Methods: Consumer Service Design Research 47 Chapter 3 Seeking Health 55 Elena’s Story: It Can Happen to Anyone 56 Information First Aid 57 Making Sense of Health Decision Making 60 Design for Consumer Health Decisions 65
  • 16.
    x Contents Case Study:Healthwise Decision Aids— Personal Health Decision Support 69 Methods: Empathic and Values Design 73 Part II: Rethinking Patients 83 Chapter 4 Design for Patient Agency 87 Elena’s Story: A Personal Health Journey 88 Self-Care as Health Agency 89 Health 2.0: Everywhere and Empowering 100 Case Study: St. Michael’s Health Design Lab— Health Design for Self-Care 107 Methods: Tools for Agency 114 Chapter 5 Patient-Centered Service Design 123 Elena’s Story: Health Self-Service 124 Patient Experience in Health Service 124 Good Care Is a Moral Issue 128 Evidence-Based Service Design 136 Service Design for Care 140 Case Study: Patient-Centered Care Innovation 145 Methods: Design Research for Healthcare Services 152 Part III: Rethinking Care Systems 161 Chapter 6 Design at the Point of Care 167 Elena’s Story: Taking a Serious Turn 168 Better Practice Is Better Service 169 Designing Health Education 175
  • 17.
    Contents xi Improving ClinicalDecision Making 187 Case Study: IDEO Continuity of Care 196 Methods: Stakeholder Co-creation 200 Chapter 7 Designing Healthy Information Technology 207 Elena’s Story: Learning to Live With 208 Critical Design Opportunities 209 How to Innovate the EMR? 218 EMR Design for Clinical Work 223 Case Study: VistA—Why It Still Matters 234 EMR Design Process 240 Design Methods: Cognitive Engineering 242 Chapter 8 Systemic Design for Healthcare Innovation 247 Elena’s Story: A System Upgrade 248 Disruptive Transformation 249 Systemic Design in Healthcare Service 253 The Four Systems of Healthcare 258 Patient-Centric Design Values 264 Large-Scale Healthcare Innovation 266 Designing Inside the System 267 Understanding Problems as Systems 269 System-Level Innovation 275 Case Study: Mayo Mom Community Health Service 284 Design Methods for Systems Innovation 288
  • 18.
    xii Contents Chapter 9 DesigningHealthcare Futures 297 Elena’s Story: A Change of Heart 298 In the Adjacent Future 298 Mid-Future: Resolution of Critical Healthcare Problems 304 Longer-Term Healthcare Foresight 307 Future Roles for Healthcare Design Leadership 316 Innovation’s Adjacent Possible 325 Conclusion 326 References 327 Index 335 Acknowledgments 354 About the Author 356
  • 19.
    xiii Foreword In 2012, mywife and I were partners on a cancer journey. She was diagnosed with stage IIIA breast cancer in December 2011, and the cycles of chemo- therapy, surgery, and radiation therapy filled the first seven months of 2012. As a clinician, I reviewed every order, every note, and every plan in her Beth Israel Deaconess online medical record. As a patient, she viewed everything written about her in her Beth Israel Deaconess PatientSite personal health record. I cannot imagine how care coordination, shared decision making, and communication would have been possible without ubiquitous patient– provider access to all the data, knowledge, and wisdom related to her care. In Design for Care, Peter Jones outlines the critical role of design in the wellness care of the future, ensuring that every provider and patient is empowered with the services and tools they need for healthcare quality, safety, and efficiency. His thoughtful analysis includes all the core concepts that are driving the US healthcare IT stimulus—policies and technologies that engage the patient, eliminate disparities, protect privacy, and prevent avoidable harm. When I mentioned that my wife’s care required universal access to data, knowledge, and wisdom, what did I mean? Data includes the simple facts about her care—an appointment is made, a medication is given, a lab test has a result. Information is the interpretation of her data in a manner that is relevant to her care—her hematocrit at baseline is 39, and after chemo- therapy it is 30. Her medications have caused side effects that may outweigh the benefits of the drug. Wisdom is applying decision support rules to her information that optimizes her care. Because her tumor is estrogen positive, progesterone positive, and HER2 negative, the best therapy is Cytoxan/Adri- amycin/Taxol. Her accumulated radiation dose from all the mammograms, CT scans, and other studies is concerning, and thus ultrasound should be used when possible. We clearly need better ways to move between data and information to knowledge and wisdom in today’s complex healthcare world. This book illus- trates these points and emphasizes the need for patients and providers to embrace a wise integration of technology into healthcare service. Meaningful use and care improvements through universal adoption of elec- tronic tools is just one of the major trends in the era of healthcare reform. “Patient-centered medical homes,” “accountable care organizations,” and “population health” are the new buzzwords. We need to rethink and actually design the new models of service, institutional practice, and patient engage- ment that ensure these new institutions become innovative alternatives to
  • 20.
    xiv Foreword the caremodel, and don’t simply replicate business as usual. The new con- cept is that care is no longer episodic, but continuous. Patients are engaged in their daily lives, and the emphasis is no longer on the treatment of illness but the preservation of wellness, maximizing functional status and care according to the preferences of the patient. Peter Jones examines the kinds of innovations that are moving care away from academic health centers and into the community and homes. This trend is essential—healthcare in the United States consumes 17% of the gross domestic product. It is a poor value, with significant cost and less than stellar outcomes. To bend the cost curve and create high-value care, it is wise to follow the recommendations outlined in this book. Embrace technol- ogy, but design it well and consider its future trajectory and how it affects safety and interaction with patients. Engage the patient and innovate in ways that focus on longitudinal wellness rather than episodic encounters for illness. I am confident you will find this book a helpful road map to guide your own journey to improve health and healthcare. —John Halamka, MD Chief Information Officer, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
  • 21.
    xv Introduction Care, and healthcare,is about taking care of humanity. Health is personal and universal—it may be the one value everyone cares about. Healthcare is the most hands-on of professions and services, and yet is extremely tech- nical. As the industry intensifies the adoption of digital and electronic technologies, deeply informed design of services and systems becomes a pressing and critical need. At the same time, healthcare design does not yet fit into the conventional clinical organization, and institutional practices have not established meaningful positions for design. However, considering the increasing role of technology, the risk of errors induced by poor design, and the complexity of healthcare itself, designers from specialized disci- plines should play critical roles in all technology decisions. Healthcare in the United States is a mess. Technically, a “mess” is a complex set of problems with inextricable interdependencies. The overall system of healthcare—from services to payment to policy—has grown so complicated that a redesign of its components would not change the system substantially. New design thinking is called for, yet where do we start? Designers have no access to the system levers, and most of our work today is aimed at making the components run better and safer. Healthcare has always organized itself around the patient encounter. Each human being with a healthcare need must be engaged in person and with respect to his or her unique biological and environmental circumstances. Healthcare services are designed to manage the flow of people from need to outcome, generally one at a time, according to the encounter formula. Services are aggregated into “big box” clinical solutions—hospitals and clin- ics—that serve as our “care malls” for full-service healthcare. Big box care is aggregated at the system level to regional and payer networks. Healthcare is changing rapidly, attended by the increasing complex- ity related to its information glut. Consumer access to highly credible health websites has irreversibly altered the traditional equation, changing once-passive patients into stakeholders in the healthcare business. Their awareness of and access to health information challenges the hegemony of institutional practice. But innovations in healthcare and open information are also balanced by the inherent risks of institutional care, its systemic risk aversion, and its regulatory environment. As healthcare services undergo constant change, do we know how the numerous information systems are cooperating, and how different views of patient data are shared? How will new information infrastructures, systems, and configurations affect prac- tice? How will changes in practice affect patients?
  • 22.
    xvi Introduction One intentionof this book is to enable better communication, under- standing, and knowledge transfer between healthcare fields and work experiences. The chapters are organized to reflect the human health experi- ence and to discuss issues at the points of interaction where people seek and receive healthcare. Designers (in general) perform systematic problem solving to formulate better ways for humans to interact with technology and services. Many designers work on systemic “big box” problems such as process workflow, information displays, and wayfinding; or behind the scenes on medical devices, health IT, or Web interfaces. As in the field itself, few designers are able to contribute in more than one healthcare sector. Therefore, better understanding between sectors will enable us to design better end-to-end processes and whole systems. This book aims to create awareness across these segments and sectors by indexing representative issues and powerful methods from successful applications. Design, in all its disciplines and methods, is finally emerging in new and influential roles in all types of healthcare services. Medicine is not, in practice, an online and digital field, but the rapid development of digital technologies in care delivery and education is drawing new designers into all healthcare sectors, from consumer websites to clinic design. Design for Care speaks to these designers and health professionals about how, where, and why their fields connect at the many points of care and service. Designing for Care Experiences Care is a powerful value, one we all take seriously. When a friend announces that he or she is taking time off from work to “take care of” a spouse or other family member, we understand the empathic response to a life-changing sit- uation that takes priority over other values. Care is not just a response in the present. We project concern and hope into a shared future, and hold both memory and expectation for the cared for. Caring extends over time, unlike the immediate empathy needed to understand user experience, for example. Yet caring is not just temporal, based on need, it is considered an endur- ing and authentic characteristic of a person. People take care of the others in their lives. Direct design implications are revealed in this observation. There may not always be a single “user” for health information and services. The single-user persona may need to be updated to a family scenario and the “best-friend search” use case. As some informatics researchers are now
  • 23.
    Introduction xvii pointing out,the health-seeking experience is a multiparticipant, multiuser circle of care. It is often familial, and inherently and intimately social. The verb care has acquired different meanings in different health and caring professions, and each profession related to health and human development may subscribe to a different definition and view of care. When settling these differences in meaning and not just discourse, the problem becomes onto- logical, a question of the reality of caring. This is not simply a conversion of meanings from one field to another. The very meaning of care and caring differs between providers (health practitioners) and between providers and recipients (patients). Design has not yet taken a clear stand in the matter of care. Perhaps we recognize that we cannot own the core when we ourselves still live and work at the periphery. Philosopher Milton Mayeroff defined caring as acting on empathy, as being able to understand another’s world as if you were that person. Caring requires knowing, trust, patience, humility, honesty, and the primacy of life’s rhythms. According to Mayeroff, for caring to take place, “there must also be developmental change of the other as a result of what I do; I must actually help the other grow.”1 How the Design Industry Must Change Design has never been a serious contender for service as a caring profes- sion. Across the full range of design fields, from communications and visual design to fashion and product design, designers are recruited to enhance campaigns that oppose values of caring. The recent vogue of design think- ing does nothing to alter the technological affinity of the design professions. Design, more than the sciences even, has been steered toward a values- neutral practice of creative product and service development. There are no core ethics of design thinking, no inherent barriers of duty or conscience that keep designers from switching from healthcare “content” to beverage industry clients. Design thinking’s crucial test is not merely surviving the merger of design and business with its soul intact, but in transforming orga- nizational practices by continually repositioning real human beings in the center of design and service management decisions. Learning from empathy is a first step toward caring, by allowing us to understand how other people experience the situations we are commit- ted to improving. Given the interest in emotional design and empathic research methods in recent years, this step may not be in doubt. Responding
  • 24.
    xviii Introduction as professionalsto the call of caring marks the current bright line between the caring professions and supporting disciplines, such as design, IT, and human research, that are not called to patient care. The call to care suggests a possible primary design position. Caring con- fronts us directly with a question of human valuing that we—designers and health professionals—may believe we are already fulfilling in some way. As with all values, the way it is understood can and will differ significantly between people. We might start from the assumption that, as designers, we do not know (yet) how the values of care are lived and acted upon. We must interpret without (yet) being expert. Design for Care presents scenarios for designers to con- sider the human and social value of caring, the various ways care shows up in health seeking and health making, and the systemic role of care. Finding Your Place in the Story Healthcare is a massively complex system that deals with at least two irreducible sources of complexity: the institutional (distributed provider systems and hospitals) and the personal (the biological and social set- ting of the human body). Furthermore, these realms cannot be isolated, because the purpose of the institution is to serve individuals. An infinite variety of possible problems arise in the relationships between these two spheres of purposeful behavior. The opportunities for design to have an impact are everywhere, from effective comprehension of materials and wayfinding to improving education and information resources. Healthcare systems provide designers a constant, endless challenge in helping clini- cians and patients navigate complex situations. Where is your place in the larger story? Design (of all disciplines) is not yet showing its impact in health services. For the most part, designers remain on the sidelines in institutions and practice, unsure of where and how to step in to make a difference. Compounding this position is the difficulty that designers are often not given the latitude to practice creatively and meaningfully in healthcare institutions. The medical and institutional care traditions do not offer a ready berth for design, and our traditional positions have little systemic impact if employed without strategic intent. Until we prove to be valuable contributing members of the care team, we risk being seen as specialists and even marginal players in the story of care.
  • 25.
    Introduction xix User experiencewon over every other application field, after a decade or more of commitment to business and IT. But change and innovation hap- pen differently in healthcare than in other sectors—the risks are higher, the funding is regulated, and the “users” are not paying (or complaining) directly. IT is not the front line of patient care. If we are not working together with a systemic strategy, we may be contributing to the fragmentation of the field by optimizing narrow bands of practice that sustain old habits. We have no way of knowing without reaching agreement on a common design lan- guage that aligns the levels of care, the organization, and its system. “Designing for care” has several meanings. Each chapter in this book focuses on a different aspect of human-centered design for care practice, identify- ing design approaches for the activity. A critical opportunity for designers is to transform the value available at the front lines of healthcare practice. Healthcare is changing rapidly, dramatically, and somewhat chaotically, as any change pushes ripple effects through the complex system. Healthcare reform, creating better care services around the patient experience, and humanizing IT are opportunities for design to contribute as a field.
  • 27.
  • 28.
    2 Part I T herapid diffusion of hundreds of Web resources for health purposes has created a gap between information quality and user expectations. Consumers can now pursue their own research into health issues by searching the vast collections of consumer-oriented health information on the Web. They cannot be expected to understand the complexity of health issues, but do expect health information to be truthful. Yet more information does not yield better information. In fact, quite the opposite may be true. Part I focuses on the health-seeking activities of the healthcare consumer. Health-Seeking Experiences A person’s health seeking is a continuous process of taking steps toward bet- ter health—before, during, and after any type of encounter with traditional healthcare service. Health seeking, as with other human motivations such as pleasure seeking or status seeking, represents an individual journey, in this case toward relatively better health. For a very healthy person, the ideal of perfect fitness may be an authentic health-seeking journey. For a cancer sufferer, relative health may be a matter of surviving treatment and fighting for gains in remission. These are health-seeking behaviors with quite differ- ent personal struggles, achievements, care needs, and support requirements. Seeking health covers a set of fundamental human needs. Every person is a health seeker in their own way, even if not a “patient” or a fitness buff. A person’s progress in health seeking is measured by points of feedback sensed from their everyday lives and received from professionals. People with chronic health concerns such as diabetes need continuous feedback. Those in “normal” health may find health feedback only marginally helpful. (For example, I may measure my workout progress, but I weigh myself on a scale maybe only twice a year.) People also have different timeframes of health feedback. Think of the health-seeking journey as occurring over a lifetime, a continuity that pro- ceeds through youth, adulthood, and older age. The individual and his or her immediate circle of care (spouse or partner, family, friends) are co–health seekers in many ways (though never “co-patients”). Everyone travels this journey together with parents, children, friends. The health journey includes a lifetime of other encounters and experiences that can enhance responsible healthy behaviors. Yet healthcare providers have little insight into the continuous health-seeking journey. Although doctors may see dozens of individual “cases” on any given day, they have little time and usually no formal payment mechanism to follow an individual’s health journey after a professional medical encounter. Their brief touchpoint is but one opportunity for improving an individual’s health among dozens in a given day. There are certainly different types of practices, and some do track and manage longitudinal health outcomes. Yet an individual’s health seeking is his or her own journey.
  • 29.
    Rethinking Care andIts Consumers 3 For more than a century, Western healthcare has treated people as patients, as passengers in a complicated and mysterious train on rails governed by seemingly unknowable biological forces. Any degree of pathology is relative to a normal (“healthy”) standard and to a person’s own experience, which may be unknowably limited and limiting. The normal condition is one of relatively balanced health in a constant motion toward homeostasis. When facing conditions that require medical intervention, people are motivated to seek health as an end in itself, as well as supporting all other goals in life. Clinicians might find the current mandate to improve the patient experi- ence as the perfect entry point to engage design practices as full partners in providing better care. Designers have the advantage of not being doctors— they are not professionally bound to the same legal responsibility to treat people only as patients, subject to clinical intervention. By repositioning the individual health seeker as a deciding and knowing agent of his or her own experience, health services can be designed to facilitate a whole-person approach to health. Improving patient experiences is the just the first step in a cultural and historical shift. A person is a patient for a limited period, but the experience of seeking health is a continuous process throughout life. Care providers and resources can help restore natural and supported func- tions of life. Health seeking is not just a “journey to normal” because there is no final state of health. People live with multiple conditions of relative health in a balancing system. Measures and indicators of “healthy” are not optimized; they are better or worse compared to an individual’s own baselines. People may lose weight by dieting but not improve cholesterol levels; they may recover from a viral infection but have a cough for weeks. No health mea- sures are static, and the numbers of good measures are not as “objectively healthy” as people might think. Health journeys are self-educating—people evolve as they learn in stages of struggle, understanding, acceptance, and self-management. Health seek- ing is an evolutionary act of self-discovery, of sustainable improvements of behavior and experience that claim a personal stake in one’s present satis- faction and future thriving. The Health Seeker in Context Beginning in Chapter 2, each chapter advances the scenario of a persona character, Elena, as she navigates complex health issues and pursues health outcomes over a series of setbacks and healthcare encounters. Her story serves as a baseline narrative to observe human responses to events, touch- points, and likely decisions for care services. This health-seeking journey is loosely aligned with each chapter’s content.
  • 30.
    Situation Touchpoints Journey Motive Chapter Seeking family health Focus on personal health Significant health concern Seeking treatment Helping others Harmonious home and family Sustain personal productivity Recover health to at least former level Best survival outcome Share lessons learned Caregiving Health Incident Diagnosis Treatment Living With 2 Years 2 Months 2 Weeks 2 Days Future Health Seeking | Elena’s Journey Elena Daughter Relatives Friends Father Elena 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 Web, home, e-mail Social circle of empathy Doctor’s office, Web, home Mutual circles of empathy Specialist center, Web, home Intimate circle of care Hospital, Web, home Personal circle of care Web, e-mail, workplace, home Information Resources Health communities and personal social media Consumer/professional resources (Medscape, HealthKnowledge) Physician references Consumer websites (Everyday Health, WebMD, Mayo Clinic) Consumer websites, physician references
  • 31.
    Rethinking Care andIts Consumers 5 Elena’s scenario is not unlike a service journey map, except from the perspective of the health seeker, whose shifts in role and identity are based on health condition and goals. The journey map is based on a typi- cal method for portraying the navigation of health seeking and clinical encounters (Figure I.1). Notice that over the entire span of roughly two years, significant health events happen in brief intervals of two months or less, with significant impact on future health and life outcomes. Physiological measures indicating relative health are not shown on this timeline, but are suggested in other contexts to indicate correspondences between measures, acute incidents, and recovery. Design goals for the health seeker in this journey view might include: • Connecting Elena to her immediate family to support her caregiver role (through electronic media, printed artifacts such as notes and remind- ers, and multisensory media). • Giving her direct support to inform and manage her family’s health needs, and connecting her with any services for which she has regular touchpoints. • Providing her with emotional support as a caregiver to help sustain her motivation and keep track of health progress. • Enabling her to easily update and track her interactions with clinical services and healthcare systems. Part I, with its focus on consumer contexts, describes Elena’s personal sphere as she seeks information, support, and resources from her immediate circle of family and community to meet her health goals. Part II describes her choices and outcomes experienced as a healthcare patient, and Part III shows her as a participant in the healthcare system. Figure I.1 A health seeker’s journey.
  • 33.
    Chapter 1 Design as Caregiving CanHealthcare Innovate Itself? 8 Are There Users of Care? 12 A Caring Design Ethic 15 The Design Thinking Divide 17 Wicked Problems in Healthcare Design 21
  • 34.
    8 Chapter 1 CanHealthcare Innovate Itself? Whether you choose a story from your own life experience or from that of a friend or family member, or just Google “healthcare horror stories,” the problems in healthcare today are clear and all too common. Urban emer- gency rooms are overflowing, medical devices have misleading interfaces that lead to errors, doctors order too many expensive and unnecessary tests, and medical records are confusing and unreadable. Private health insurance is complex, expensive, and fragmented, sometimes resulting in crippling financial difficulties. Pharmaceutical wonder drugs are pulled off the market after a few years as emerging harmful side effects show up. Healthcare has optimized every function in the system, but the system grows more complex as these functions overlap and compete. As Harvard management professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter recently wrote, Supposedly, everyone working in health care wants the same thing: to help people get and stay healthy. . . . The problem is that everyone can have a different view of the meaning of getting and staying healthy. Lack of consensus among players in a complex system is one of the biggest barriers to innovation. One sub- group’s innovation is another subgroup’s loss of control.1 Because healthcare problems are so complicated and messy, they cannot easily be untangled once they appear. Mike McCallister, CEO of insur- ance provider Humana, described the US healthcare sector as a gigantic mix of varied players that is “broken, but can be fixed. We don’t actually have a healthcare system. We have a lot of different systems that are glued together.”2 Alex Jadad, founder of Toronto’s Centre for Global eHealth Inno- vation, calls for immediate innovation in person-centered healthcare and collaborative development of IT to help Canada’s high-functioning but stressed healthcare system: “This technology can help us transcend our cognitive, physical, institutional, geographical, cultural, linguistic, and his- torical boundaries. Or it can contribute to our extinction.”3 Designing for care brings a holistic and systemic design perspective to the complex problems of healthcare. We are already improving services by designing better artifacts, communications, and environments. What remains missing is the mindset of professional care in designing for people, practitioners, and societies. Like clinicians, designers in the health field can take responsibility for helping people and societies become healthier in all aspects of living. Technology Will Not Save Healthcare Technologists advocate for disruptive innovation in healthcare, a call that envisions radical change for consumers as well as the largest institutions. The two targets of disruption are typically hospital-based institutional
  • 35.
    Design as Caregiving9 healthcare and the medical care model itself. The cure is envisioned to be a future of low-cost networked computer technology owned by consumers, not clinicians. A kit can be imagined consisting of embedded sensors con- nected to a handset, cloud-based data collection with instant analytics, and continuous-learning algorithms that diagnose individual conditions based on rapid sensor tests and genetic analysis. Possible new treatments are not described clearly, but still an accountable person will be needed to adminis- ter injections and judge the appropriate therapy and medications. A problem with such scenarios is that they project a future driven by technological determinism—because it can be done, it will be done. The decentralized “future of medicine” scenarios articulate radical changes in technology but fail to address changes in cultural meaning. As pictured by Silicon Valley, healthcare could be decentralized and fragmented into defined care streams that the “user” (the patient) would navigate as self- service interfaces. In effect, these scenarios shift care decisions to “consum- ers” who might be existentially vulnerable to their own poor decisions (as well as to new types of usability risks). If patients are forced by economic changes to trust a technology instead of a physician, the ethics of “brave new healthcare” scenarios become socially problematic. The technologically determined scenarios suggest a sociological change more radical than any other system designed in human society. Healthcare is the world’s largest employment base, with national health systems among the largest employers in their respective countries. Such a disruption would ignore the sociotechnical foundation of healthcare that underlies practice, education, policy, employment, and the very meaning of care. It risks replac- ing medicine with a new corporate system devoid of human socioculture or caring, treating diseases as functional states mediated by robots. Although the enabling technologies can and will be developed, their implementation will look very little like the visions of computational “personalized” medi- cine imagined by technological utopians (and investors standing to benefit). Another focus of disruptive change is the US private insurance model, which turns on policy innovation and not technology. Innovation in insurance- managed payments to guarantee equitable care services might make the single largest difference in people’s everyday lives. If patients did not have to worry about going bankrupt to pay for the noncovered costs for healthcare services, they would view their health and self-care differently. Although not a perfect policy for either citizens or providers, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) established a new framework for policy innovation to occur, to meet the goals of covering uninsured Americans and managing aggre- gate costs. If the system were not based on profit-seeking business models, innovative new care practices would be designed and implemented. In the United States today, however, with multiple layers of cost accounting and payment review, stakeholders distrust one another, and patients lose out. Unfortunately, the ultimate fix is not technological but political, the results
  • 36.
    10 Chapter 1 ofpolicy innovation to ensure universal coverage and appropriate technol- ogy support. Major policy changes will be necessary to encourage the risk-averse health industry to accept system-wide innovation. Today, healthcare systems and their management are the biggest barriers to meaningful innovation, as they have so much to lose in a paradigmatic shift. Even the most radical breakthrough technologies often demonstrate only incremental improvements to the service and experience of care. As new clinical services are developed around emerging medical technologies, the form and function of current practice will change only modestly, perhaps not even perceptibly to patients. Due to culture, risk, payment, generally accepted practices, and other systemic factors, technological change is often not leveraged as an opportunity to change policy and practice. Both of these envisioned “disruptions” shift profits and costs, winners and losers. Only the disruption of the insurance industry guarantees a benefi- cial cost shift to consumers in the near term. There are no guarantees that technological disruption will pass end savings to consumers. Though low- cost systems can be developed, there are no social provisions for regulating the resulting business models and new corporate entities that could manage health technologies. If the pharmaceutical industry (which is rarely men- tioned as a target for disruption) cannot innovate new business models, it seems misguided to believe that emerging technologies slated to replace physicians will be priced any differently than pharmaceutical products. In a market-based system, disruptive innovations create real competi- tive value by making long-established services obsolete. But even if many healthcare services are profit-based, should innovation best be envisioned as enabling a competitive economic outcome? How does disruption help healthcare? Human lives are at stake, not merely profits. Innovation of Human-Centered Care Systems All-out radical technological change is not the only way to create value for health seekers and reduce exponential costs. A better way to innovate might be found in designing human-centered care systems. The human-centered design of healthcare has never been more neces- sary. Leading innovation provocateur Don Norman, with designer and author Roberto Verganti, proposed a concept and solution to the paradox of “merely” incremental innovation from human-centered design.4 They position radical and incremental technology innovation against radical and incremental innovation of meaning. The position emerged from Norman’s observation that only new technologies were found to trigger radical change. And yes, he found that human-centered design research (studying users in their native habitat) rarely, if ever, led to disruptive innovation. Though
  • 37.
    Design as Caregiving11 essential to incremental improvements in technological systems from air- planes to software, design research fails to find breakthroughs, due in part to the fact that radical changes cannot be extrapolated from observing practice. Further, user evidence tends to reinforce the very practices being studied, as user behavior is defined by its goals and productivity, not the experimentation that might lead to completely new practices. The shift to cultural and practice innovation is found in the other half of the Norman-Verganti equation: the radical innovation of meaning. What Verganti calls design-led innovation involves redefining the socially rec- ognized meaning of technology or a practice. Sociotechnical practices in healthcare may be reframed (without radically changing technologies) to shift the social purpose. The accountable care organization (ACO) model promoted by new US legislation carries the seeds of new value propositions that have yet to be tested. The essential meaning change is that of localized care centers with more attention to patient life needs to reduce readmit- tances. Although ACOs might become radically patient-centered, perhaps the most significant value will emerge in the social meaning change, with new types of care practices being envisioned that reinvent the relationship of providers and health seekers. These practices and their business models offer fertile ground for the new types of designers being trained in socially aware innovation. Disruptive innovations that we see in other industries may have less of a role in healthcare, even though the opportunities for new technology are clearly present. Healthcare facilities are not early adopters. New software, devices, and systems take time to learn and socialize, and the investment of professional time and budget in training and ramp-up is quite expensive. The expense of these social costs can outweigh the benefit of adoption. For example, desktop computers took years to infiltrate hospitals, and by the time they were ubiquitous in the clinic, they had become common in homes. Minimal training was necessary because the technology was already per- vasive. The use of mobile devices is following the same late adopter cycle, allowing for a more natural (less forced) introduction of new devices into high-performance, high-risk clinical environments. Even information systems require mammoth projects for system-wide implementation. The adoption of new services and systems is by no means a given. Breakthrough medical technologies are also not adopted immediately by institutions. New technologies, devices, and therapies require extensive review and evaluation through animal and human trials, developmental testing, and regulatory approvals. Changes in practice may take months or even years to filter through an institution or system diffused across regions and affiliation. For example, the truly disruptive da Vinci robotic surgery system did not change medical practice as we know it. It allows skilled sur- geons to operate on remote and special-case patients who were previously
  • 38.
    12 Chapter 1 underserved.Da Vinci signals the start of a new trend that might increase capital costs (as hospitals must all acquire it to compete) as well as lower surgery costs, potentially having a democratizing effect of equalizing the quality of routine surgeries across regions. Da Vinci is a disruptive technology that shows significant yet incremen- tal effects. Organizations absorb the new system into the current business model. For now at least, hospitals remain big box clinical institutions. Tech- nology and product design have only incremental effects on the patient experience. Patients must still be prepped and undergo an invasive proce- dure, yet now with the much greater convenience of being able to show up at a community-based clinic in the healthcare network. Change is difficult for doctors, and adaptation to changes can be discomforting for patients. This perspective of redesigning existing practices explodes one of the most treasured myths of innovation. Many authors suggest that disruptive inter- ventions have the highest impact and are therefore the aim of innovation. Innovation theories celebrate the value of “disruptive” innovation as the most competitive form of innovation. Yet what are the purposes of disrup- tive healthcare innovation? To improve efficiencies, costs, practices, or patient experiences? We might reframe the purposes of disruptive innovation in institutional healthcare based on the experience with platforms and devices. The da Vinci system performs operative functions that surgical teams can understand and integrate within well-defined routines. It doesn’t disrupt the function of surgery, but rather the way routine operations are physically performed. Information technologies tend to disrupt clinical work in ways that may reduce efficiency of performance. New systems require training and ramp-up time (away from patients). Additional time must be allocated for electronic entries for the purported benefit of administration, not patients. Consider the societal value of an innovation from the perspective of those most affected by the results. Does a simple value analysis show benefit to all direct stakeholders? Will health seekers benefit from the change? Are There Users of Care? Healthcare is a complicated business, and can be a complicated context for design. Multiple stakeholders (from consumers and patients to clinical staff, administrators, and insurers) interact with multiple services (from primary care to academic institutional networks) in multiple sectors (from clinical practice to insurance and government). Traditional user-centered design practices are insufficiently powerful to solve problems at this level of com- plexity. We can easily and mistakenly design a perfect product or service for “our users,” yet remain disconnected from the other systems and stakehold- ers the service may affect.
  • 39.
    Design as Caregiving13 In health contexts, the risks to health and the effects on practice are always considered. Healthcare environments require the use of far more rigor- ous design and development methods than the contemporary trend in user experience (UX) and service design. Involving both significant financial and human life impacts, investment decisions are based on evidence, with a strong organizational bias toward statistical evidence. Designers face a recurring challenge in every healthcare project—to envi- sion the scope for service sufficient to meet future needs and growing complexity. We design for situations that have multiple interacting work- flows, poor integration, layers of legacy infrastructure, and highly dispersed applications. These legacies constrain the ability to design services across departments, institutions, or at any level we consider as “the system.” Healthcare is a large-scale distributed system dedicated to serving individu- als with health needs but who are not the paying customer. This is a classic dilemma of service and experience design: the patient (the end user) has lit- tle decision-making power but a life-critical need; the institutional customer (who pays) has significant power but little understanding of need. Patients and practitioners are changing the balance of power through improved transparency and access to information. But these social, human, and information interactions magnify the technical complexities because they introduce new uncertainties to decisions and transactions. UX design advocates understanding and designing for the optimal user interaction. It often supposes an interactive product with specified uses in a work (or point of care) context. User-centered design has served as a suf- ficiently powerful methodology for a generation, and health informatics and technologies have improved significantly, if incrementally. A generation of experience designers has been trained to represent the interests and needs of users, and we have institutionalized “the user” as shorthand for design (user-centered) and usability (user-friendly). However, there is no single user in healthcare, and the convention of referring to users may be misleading in the context of care. In healthcare practice and design, the vocabulary and perception of the human subject is dominated by three primary frames: user, patient, and con- sumer. All three designations are passive, objectified representations that constrain a person’s significance as a “health actor” to a transactional role. These roles designate people as users of products (user), clients of institu- tions (patient), or recipients of services (consumer). If we examine critically the ways in which designers participate in projects, advise on the design of IT and systems, and select research methods, the attendant design values of these roles show up in dialogue and decision making. A user-centered service design perspective leads us to focus on the patient, the recipient of care and the human actor most vulnerable to “disruptive”
  • 40.
    14 Chapter 1 technologyimpacts. By focusing on patient outcomes and processes, design decisions are unassailable and credible. Presenting a case based on real patient needs and experience can move a room of mixed opinions to consen- sus agreement. The patient-centered perspective has become a significant movement in medical practice, and is central to healthcare service design. Yet people do not see themselves as patients; it is not a persistent role or identity that people choose. The patient identity is not persistent across the continuous experience of health seeking. Also, as readily observed in healthcare institu- tions, not all service problems involve patient behavior. The patient is not central to every function in healthcare systems and organizations. We have also been conditioned through years of professionalization to accept a medical view of wellness and sickness, a view in which people show up as patients within a largely corporate healthcare system. As designers, we unwittingly follow this model when we adopt a conventional approach to workflow and personas. We even risk this perspective when making claims for “improving the patient experience.” That is, we are still framing a clinical encounter as a “patient experience,” making the inevitable more comfortable or efficient. We risk representing a supply-side (vendor-oriented) perspec- tive, which only simulates empathy or care, regardless of the humanizing intent of the methods. If not working within a clinical organization, we may not be able to speak with real patients in actual care situations. Designers and health professionals need better methods for understanding experience and making design claims with often limited access and data. A market-based viewpoint defines people as customers and receivers of health or information services that others produce and supply. The consumer designation fixes our attention to a transactional service relationship inimi- cal to the values of care. Critiquing the consumer persona or mindset frees up the capacity to innovate with fresh perspectives. Human health is not the result of a service transaction; rather, it flourishes in the context of care, drawing on personal, familial, professional, and community resources. In a complex system such as healthcare, naming any persona as a user privileges just one role in the system. It also assumes something to use, and traditional modes of use are often not the case in healthcare. In care situ- ations, everyone participates at some point in a human system of health seeking from which we produce care and support. By enlarging the scope of health seeking to view it as a social context of health seekers and caregivers, we expand beyond our narrow (and professional) point of view that wants to designate people as “users.” Each of these three frames (user, patient, consumer) has relevance in certain circumstances, and they are useful to indicate to designers the differences in identity and activity across the spectrum of health services. Yet real people do not experience themselves as these roles, especially in health situations.
  • 41.
    Design as Caregiving15 We might actively replace the old mental models with a fresh perspec- tive based on the lived experience of health. What should designing for care establish as the perspective for care-centered practices? To answer this, let’s ask higher order questions: Why are people in the healthcare system? What motivates people who seek care and health? The health seeker may not be a patient or even a consumer, but any per- son aware of her motivation to improve her health. A health seeker may be any person desiring better health for his own life circumstance, for a fam- ily member, or a friend. A family or community might seek health. It is not necessarily an individual experience. People do not always follow medical advice, take their prescriptions, or take the most rational steps when dealing with a disease condition. People make sense of their life concerns together with their specific questions when seeking health and health information. As such, health seeking is not just looking things up on Dr. Google. It is a process of organizing one’s experience and trusted resources, including materials from the Web and advice from health professionals and family and friends, to address partially formed questions. If health seeking can be understood as a continuous lifelong process, a care-centered design orienta- tion can span the different needs of patient, professional, and service, and help us define priorities for intervention and redesign. A Caring Design Ethic Caring design requires a change in meaning, as the design professions have no tradition of care practices. True care goes beyond the appreciative and participates with the personal feelings and social concerns shared by both patients and practitioners. Beyond the instrumental empathy “in order to” understand the user, care seeks to understand the senses and feelings of a person, as they really matter. An honest, empathic interest expressed in care will be challenged by the typical organizational commitments of a designer’s IT company or agency. When we use project management language to structure our product requirements and define our shared goals, we may fail to even acknowledge the other values calling for attention in a care situation. In healthcare, care design may then part ways with both the individualistic approach to creativ- ity and the brutal efficiencies of project management in design execution. The values and ideals promoted in a caring design ethic are drawn from the humane arts and sciences of health and medicine. These include empathic care, doing no harm, health for the whole person, and helping people live sustainable lives. Devoting a new focus of care in design practice requires an innovation of meaning for designers, and it may change our methods, tools, and engagements. The narrative for this next generation of humane design practice has yet to be formed. How will the meaning of value to clients, com- munities, and health seekers change?
  • 42.
    16 Chapter 1 ShiftingFocus from Product to Person New systems are not always the answer. Consider the cumulative impact of the thousands of cognitive interactions required of users for every new service, system, interface, device, or billing statement. Doctors are too busy to adopt more than a few essential services, and they often maintain older systems that are safely committed to memory, rather than invest time in learning a new system that may introduce transition risks and fail to improve care or costs. Patients may be confused by the sprawling range of Web services and competing arrays of redundant online health information. Consider the many new products, interfaces, and tools for individual health- care that may be innovative but have no accepted mandate. For example, personal health records (PHR), such as Microsoft HealthVault, have been available since 2007, but adoption has been hampered by the lack of basic usability, limited utility, and “understandability.” Most people do not yet understand the PHR and its possible value. Google ended the Google Health PHR in 2011 due to a lack of general acceptance and process (not just inter- face) usability. An application only used by individuals who must use it is not a basis for mass adoption. Issues such as information privacy, caregiver accessibility, and care team collaboration are also significant design factors. Technical and usability concerns are also daunting impediments to acceptance and adoption. The early adopters of personal health technologies are people motivated to use these tools for daily needs, but patients living with significant health con- cerns may—due to age and multiple conditions—find it more difficult to learn and use these tools than people with less need for them. The Case for Caring Design Although each design discipline differs in its methods and targets, most designers work at understanding problems of human use of a thing or a system, and innovate to make effective changes that people desire. Since the dawn of medicine and physical care, people have designed artifacts to enhance practice, comfort, and communications. Nurses “designed” the Kardex documentation system, and medical librarians contributed to the formal design of medical charts. But until very recently, people trained as designers have largely been absent from the health professions, and very few programs educate designers in healthcare practices. In the 1980s, first in architecture and then (much later) in device design human factors, specially trained designers began focusing on health appli- cations. Human interface design for medical devices only improved after problems were reported with control interfaces in devices (such as drug infusion pumps) that had been designed by engineers with no user inter- face design training. With the recent explosion of informatics and health
  • 43.
    Design as Caregiving17 websites in the last decade, it would seem the entry point for service and experience design has finally arrived. Design is not taught or (in practice) led from a caring perspective. Design is a creative practice that employs empathy as a method for designing bet- ter, more usable products and services. Empathy is a temporary caring, and becomes instrumental when invoked as a means to improving the design of things or services for sale. Although we may care about the impact of our design work, we do not usually follow and care for the lives of our users, or the patients affected by our systems. We may care about users and patients, but we are not called on to care about any particular person. How we might “care more” is a question that requires rethinking the role of design and human-centered research. The difference may entail moving from perform- ing as contributing designers to coordinating patient-centered service projects. In these scenarios, the health outcomes of future patients are now at stake. Yet the imperative for innovation and service change means organi- zations will accept a higher level of creative and participatory design. The Design Thinking Divide Healthcare practice and institutions have no common voice, and few “whole system” advocates are followed. Ranking just after the prime directive of “help all and do no harm,” institutions care about cost and risk. Because change incurs both costs and risk, healthcare has significant incentives not to change the system. These values and incentives powerfully determine the scope of design impact. Traditional UX and service design methodologies may be necessary, but are not sufficient. Design proposals require sponsors to weigh care, cost, and risk. Institutional sponsors deal in quantitative evidence where possible, and designers make qualitative arguments based on human experience. Making matters worse in practice, design and implementation decisions are fraught with compet- ing interests, often imposing near-term decision making on the IT team and changes in practice, and design and research professionals are often isolated in narrow bands of problem scope. The complexity of healthcare IT applications requires that designers make a personal and usually long-term commitment to the domain, involving years of learning, practice, and patience with slow progress. In institutional or commercial healthcare IT development, designers have much less con- trol over the delivered experience than in other fields. The opportunities for creative influence or enhancement may not be apparent (and may need to be courageously co-created in the organization). Healthcare as a domain is strongly influenced by empirical scientific tradition and evidence-based practices. Designers will be expected to understand and adapt to the lan- guage of the domain rather than the language of design and user experience.
  • 44.
    18 Chapter 1 Large-scalehealthcare applications are based on enterprise IT architec- tures, which may take many years of development cycles to significantly change. And ethnographic or field research is hampered by limited access to the different “users,” especially patients, due to privacy and immediate care considerations. Most research studies take months, not weeks, because they are carefully designed and then reviewed by ethics boards. Due to these fac- tors and the hierarchical and highly managed healthcare culture, a design team must be committed to making a difference over the long term. Healthcare applications—at least institutional applications—are not designed by means of creative ideation, participatory design, or even itera- tive prototyping. There are few national-level design advisors or advocates from the design or even the industrial engineering fields. Publications are dominated by physicians and informatics specialists, whose work is often based on tightly focused, feasible research agendas fitting institutional man- dates. Conferences are highly specialized within medical or educational discipline (professional societies), technology (health IT and informatics), technology-oriented research (the Medicine 2.0 movement), and disease specialization (e.g., the American Diabetes Association). There are no regu- lar design-oriented conferences in the healthcare field yet, and few tracks within conferences to encourage discourse between design professionals across different fields. Our current lack of standing is also evidenced by the subordination of design practice to every other field we support. Yet the situ- ation is changing, and many new points of entry have opened. Lost and Found in the System How do designers build a more systemic approach? We are not typically engaged at the level of healthcare reform or practice, but serve in problem- solving teams for well-framed issues. Our points of entry to the system level are not clear. The advisors and policy advocates in healthcare are distinctly separated by problem area (disease management, medical education, health insurance reform) and separated by problem-solving approach (policy, prac- tice innovation, patient-centered medicine, information systems). Due to the complexity of healthcare practices and the compelling urgency of narrow-focus concerns, individual designers and design teams are often unable to design solutions to address root causes. It is rare to design any application that scales across institutions or practice areas. The Web does not count because most applications are piecemeal, insufficient, or one of many similar sites. Universal access is not a solution for scaling across domains or services. Given the serious design risks of unforeseeable design error in health prac- tice and the hazards of liability, designers, researchers, and engineers are obligated to understand the systemic problems in the field. Small oversights
  • 45.
    Design as Caregiving19 can lead to consequential errors. As a patient you may have noticed an irritating but inconspicuous oversight, such as the overly small text size on a prescription label or a long wait in an examination room. Or you may have experienced the frustration of poor information organization—or even intentional obfuscation—as you attempt to decipher your insurance coverage before phoning for an appointment. You may have been the hap- less recipient of an everyday medical mistake, such as a slightly misplaced needle insertion that leaves a well-liked muscle tender for weeks. Chances are these irritants, on their own, would not be considered worthy of special design attention. Are they symptomatic of systematic problems? From an outsider’s perspective—and designers are still outsiders—the sys- tem that connects these particular incidents may not readily disclose itself. However, once inside the health-industrial complex, significant design con- cerns will show up that overwhelm these trivial annoyances. Do not lose sight of the seemingly minor inconveniences; frustration is one of the lead- ing causes of innovation. Frustrations with wayfinding, communications, or documentation may reveal underlying systemic causes that have been completely overlooked. If your intention is to apply design thinking and skills to make a differ- ence in healthcare, start with your own history and perspectives. We are all health seekers. Uncover your personal interests and biases, your beliefs about life and health, and your positions on scientific evidence and the art of medicine. Unlike other fields of design and management, personal experi- ences and common sense may harness your motivation and inform a sense of genuine empathy. Designers and researchers work with and deeply appreciate the abstract— our building blocks include information, artifacts, interaction, aesthetics, methods, templates, personas, and so on. The healthcare field, which has become automated and intellectual, is centered on embodied subjects— people with health concerns. Healthcare itself is a hands-on practice of continual and practical problem solving. In few other worlds of design do we find such a difference between our maps (our products) and the territory. Design Thinking in Service and Policy Sectors People working on the front lines of healthcare are overloaded with well- intentioned information services. Research has identified the prevalence of platform fatigue, when busy professionals become weary of maintain- ing an institution’s multiple systems for patient records, billing, orders, and decision support, each of which requires access, password control, login sequences, and learning a new interface. Future healthcare problems are not solved by the introduction of a better user experience.
  • 46.
    20 Chapter 1 Scalableservices—service systems—require rethinking IT, not just as an integrating resource in a whole system but as a team player that is as trusted as a human member of the clinical team. Clearly, IT has not achieved this level of reliability and resilience yet. The implementation of IT “solutions” should never become a default management decision. Multidisciplinary clinical service design teams are called for to determine the appropriate allocation of technological, organizational, and individual role functions in care service systems. At the very least, a regular practice of critical evalua- tions can assess that care provision is not impeded or complicated. The societal waves of change happening now are driving the need for bet- ter design. We should expect a historically large shift from other fields into healthcare, due to the near-term political and institutional attention on implementing electronic patient records. Driven by the push of the 2009 Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act in the United States, and the general mandate of ready funding for tech- nology, health centers continue to rush to implement and integrate medical records, hospital management, billing, and insurance in massive institu- tional databases. These systems are complex, unwieldy, and at some point, necessary. Yet their interfaces are intended for practitioners working in hec- tic care settings who usually consider computers an administrative chore. Outside of the United States, healthcare requires a complete rethinking of our experience with health services, providers, costs, and innovation. Whereas developed nations may be faced with an overabundance of choice, emerging economies require consideration of how design can help the very basic outcomes of healthcare services. In the United States, we expect an exchange of ideas and methods between the consumer and professional sec- tors. In global healthcare, we cannot expect to transfer knowledge and the easy fixes learned from North American successes. In developing nations, culturally appropriate innovation might require a integration of traditional practices with guidance from mainstream healthcare procedures and medi- cations. Automation may be a helpful but secondary concern, with health centers enabled by off-the-shelf software and sufficiently reliable computers, while allowing for unreliable grid power and Internet access. We might also acknowledge how the technological imperative is implied in innovation thinking. Not all “systems” in healthcare are computer-based; the technical work of care is performed as a hands-on human process. Diag- nosis, treatment, procedures, aftercare, and care planning are not (yet) automated, and the human-to-human relationship of care never will be. Yet healthcare process and procedure generates a massive amount of data helpful in analysis and management of services. The allocation of human and automated tasks remains a moving target as IT and sensors expand the possibilities of public and individual care, and the designers of service and
  • 47.
    Design as Caregiving21 experience have rights to the negotiable intersection between human and information. Unfortunately for interaction and UX designers, the healthcare IT market has not matured to the point where UX factors significantly affect purchase and implementation decisions. We are only now getting a hearing, and with the rapid pace of newly installed databases, we may be appearing on the scene much too late. Yet these systems still need our help. Wicked Problems in Healthcare Design Healthcare is not only a “mess,” it technically entails many wicked prob- lems—complexities with no clear and immediate resolution. Wicked problems are generally large in scale, affecting unknown numbers of people with unknown levels of risk and effect. They include most persistent social and environmental issues that have emerged from multiple root causes over time. In truly wicked problems, original causes (such as bad regulatory deci- sions) evolve into new effects (corrupt agencies and regimes), interventions have no testable solution (How do you determine whether the situation has been resolved?), and the very acknowledgment of a “problem” results from the earlier effects of embedded, interconnected, complicated problems. Systems scientist Horst Rittel reserved the term for systemic social problems that defy analytical problem solving, are not understandable by any single individual, and have no single best solution.5 In healthcare, wicked problems are the most critical (and costly) issues, such as aging populations, multiple chronic diseases, interacting conditions in persons living longer, and rapid changes required of practice based on constant updates to (and conflicts in) research. They occur at a scale that can have devastating financial and soci- etal impacts that increase over time. Reaching agreement on how to solve these problems remains difficult, but they also require action in the face of incomplete knowledge and limited foresight, meaning that we often do our best and then live with the consequences. Problems that do not meet the definition of wicked are commonly framed as simple, complicated, or complex. Simple problems are those situations with a clear cause and a reliable response in most cases. In healthcare, these include well-understood routine conditions such as broken bones and lacer- ations. Many more health concerns are complicated, requiring iterative tests and observations. Surgical operations are complicated, with many mov- ing parts and many ways to fail. Complex problems are interconnected and entangled issues with uncertain outcomes. Chronic, interacting diseases are complex, such as asthma, allergies, and many cancers or autoimmune dis- eases. Wicked problems are complex problems with uncertain interventions as well as uncertain outcomes. These can range from healthcare system reform to facial pain management.
  • 48.
    22 Chapter 1 DesignStrategies Design strategy is necessary to align any radical innovation with organizational purposes. A design strategy, spanning every role from com- munications to services, reframes the meaning of change to stakeholders, and creatively aligns a new concept with implementation. A design strategy determines whether managers will risk changing the meaning of health- care services or merely adapt technology to current practices. Because the tradition of professional care has become so culturally embedded, few insti- tutions risk taking the road to radical meaning change. Over the last two decades, a small number of progressive frameworks for design thinking have been found applicable for the selection of strategic design options. Design theorist Richard Buchanan’s orders of design is an influential schema for problem framing, as well a definitive reference to the contemporary view of design thinking.6 He proposed four placements that designers employ to compose integrated design strategies across four classes of design targets: • Symbolic and visual communications • Artifacts and material objects • Activities and organized services • Complex systems and environments Buchanan observed that designers draw upon placements as ways to cre- atively reconfigure a design concept in a new situation. All designers build their own vocabularies, as well as a set of skills and styles applicable in their domains of work. Rather than following a fixed series of orders to reach an outcome, the placements are a strategy for creative invention. An infor- mation design problem for a website might lead to a discovery of a better wayfinding information scheme by adopting the new Web information cat- egories and shifting across types from one placement to another. We can find a range of problem types in every healthcare sector, but things become complex when defining problem boundaries. An individual health problem can be viewed as a matter of self-care or as interacting with multiple institutional systems. Where we draw the line matters. Designers and strate- gists Garry VanPatter and Elizabeth Pastor defined design geographies—four essentially different design domains, Design 1.0 through 4.0, that represent an evolution of design practice, research, and education to develop new knowl- edge bases necessary for increasing complexity (Figure 1.1).7
  • 49.
    Design as Caregiving23 The stages are not replacements of former paradigms (as in Health 2.0). They are based on observations from practice settings, and their “proof” is not theoretical but comes from applica- tion. Managing complexity is not just a matter of increasing scope. Different skills and methods apply in each domain that are generally transfer- able up, but not down, from one level to the next. The four stages embody design processes for the following contexts: 1. Artifacts and communications: design as making, or traditional design practice 2. Products and services: design for value creation (including service design, holistic product innovation, multichannel, and user experience), or design as integrating 3. Organizational transformation (complex, bounded by business or strategy): design for transforming work practices, strategies, and organizational structures 4. Social transformation (complex, unbounded): design for transforming social systems, policies, and communities Because of the magnitude of complexity differ- ence in each stage, they are not interchangeable. In any given design process, the skills and orien- tations from all levels might be employed. Each higher phase is inclusive of the lower levels as the problem complexity expands from Design 1.0 to 4.0. An organizational process (D3.0) can design communications in line with the quality of the best D1.0 work. The process itself follows the methods and practices of a D2.0 service. The four domains differ in their strategy, inten- tion, and outcomes. Each requires skill and coordination of distinct methods, design prac- tices, types of collaboration, and stakeholder participation. These are not fixed requirements but merely entry criteria for performing in the capacity of that “geography” in practice. The domains are described as follows (Figure 1.2): Scale increases DESIGN 4.0 Social Transformation Design DESIGN 3.0 Organizational Transformation Design DESIGN 2.0 Product / Service Design DESIGN 1.0 Traditional Design Figure 1.1 Mapping design process to chal- lenge complexity. (Courtesy of Humantific)
  • 50.
    24 Chapter 1 Focuson change-making Health policy Healthcare affiliations Social innovation Multistakeholder networks Participatory action research Focus on change-making Organizational processes Business system design Participatory leadership Clinical practice and research Cross-function action teams Business, process, and practice innovation Focus on differencing User experience design Service design Product design Informatics and decision support Product team collaboration Focus on differencing Consumer and institutional products Communications, websites Promotion and advertising Brands and identities Patient literature DESIGN 4.0 Social Transformation Design DESIGN 3.0 Organizational Transformation Design DESIGN 2.0 Product / Service Design DESIGN 1.0 Traditional Design Figure 1.2 Design 1.0–4.0 approaches in complexity scale.
  • 51.
    Another Random ScribdDocument with Unrelated Content
  • 52.
    »Sie wollen alsogehen?« rief Doña Mercedes aus und näherte sich der Seña Frasquita, ohne sich um Don Eugenio zu kümmern. »So gehen Sie also ohne Sorge, der Skandal wird keine Folgen haben. Rosa, leuchte den Herrschaften, sie wollen ja schon gehen. Geht mit Gott, Tio Lucas!« »O nein!« schrie Don Eugenio, indem er sich hineinmischte. »Tio Lucas wird nicht fortgehen. Tio Lucas wird so lange im Arrest bleiben, bis ich die volle Wahrheit weiß. Halloh, Alguacilen! Im Namen des Königs!« Nicht einer der Polizeidiener gehorchte Don Eugenio. Alle blickten die Corregidora an. »Nun, Mann, mache Platz!« fügte diese hinzu, indem sie ihn fast umstieß und sich von allen mit der größten Feinheit verabschiedete, das heißt, den Kopf leicht zur Seite geneigt, ergriff sie ihr Kleid mit den Fingerspitzen und neigte sich anmutig, bis sie die Modereverenz jener Zeit ausführte, die man la pompa[9] nannte. »Aber ich... aber du... aber wir... aber die da,« murmelte der arme Alte noch immer, zog seine Frau am Kleide und störte ihre bestangefangenen Verbeugungen. Vergebliches Bemühen! Niemand kümmerte sich um Sr. Gnaden. Als alle fortgegangen und die entzweiten Gatten im Salon allein waren, geruhte die Corregidora endlich im Tone einer Czarin aller Reussen, welche über einen gefallenen Minister den Blitzstrahl der ewigen Verbannung nach Sibirien schlendert, zu ihrem Gatten zu sagen: »Und lebtest du tausend Jahre, so sollst du doch nie erfahren, was in dieser Nacht in meinem Schlafzimmer vorgefallen ist. Wenn du darin gewesen wärest, wie es natürlich war, so brauchtest du niemand danach zu fragen. Was mich anbetrifft, so habe und werde ich nie einen Grund haben, der mich nötigen könnte, es zu enthüllen, dazu verachte ich dich zu sehr, und wenn du nicht der
  • 53.
    Vater meiner Kinderwärest, so würde ich dich jetzt vom Balkon herunterstürzen ... Und hiermit gute Nacht, Caballero!« Als die Corregidora diese Worte ausgesprochen hatte, die der Corregidor anhörte, ohne auch nur mit einer Wimper zu zucken (denn wenn er allein war, wagte er es nicht, gegen seine Frau aufzutreten), ging sie in das Schlafzimmer, schloß die Thüren hinter sich zu, und der arme Mann blieb mitten im Saal aufgepflanzt stehen und murmelte mit einem beispiellosen Cynismus zwischen den Gaumen — Zähne hatte er ja nicht: »Gott sei Dank! Ich glaubte nicht, daß es so gut enden würde... Garduña wird mir eine andere suchen.«
  • 55.
    36. Schluß, Moral undEpilog. Fröhlich zwitschernd grüßten die Vögel den Morgen, als Tio Lucas und die Seña Frasquita die Stadt verließen, um sich nach der Mühle zu begeben. Die Gatten gingen zu Fuß, vor ihnen her trabten die beiden zusammengekoppelten Esel. »Am Sonntag mußt du zur Beichte gehen,« sagte die Müllerin zu ihrem Mann, »denn du mußt dich von all den schlechten Meinungen und verbrecherischen Absichten dieser Nacht reinigen.« »Da hast du einen guten Gedanken,« antwortete der Müller. »Aber du mußt mir dafür auch einen Gefallen thun und die Matratzen und das Bettzeug unseres Bettes den Armen geben und alles neu anschaffen. Ich lege mich nicht wieder dahin, wo dies giftige Gewürm geschwitzt hat.« »Nenne ihn nicht, Lucas!« versetzte die Seña Frasquita. »Aber um von etwas anderem zu sprechen. Ich möchte dich noch um einen anderen Gefallen bitten...« »Bitte nur.« »Im künftigen Sommer wirst du mich nach Solan de Cabras bringen, um eine Badekur zu gebrauchen.« »Warum?« »Um zu sehen, ob wir Kinder bekommen werden.« »Das ist eine sehr glückliche Idee. Wenn Gott uns das Leben schenkt, sollst du dorthin gehen.«
  • 56.
    Sie langten beider Mühle an, gerade als die Sonne, ohne noch aufgegangen zu sein, die Gipfel des Gebirges vergoldete. — — — Zur größten Überraschung der Gatten, die nach einer so ärgerlichen Szene, wie die der vergangenen Nacht, keine Besuche von hohen Herrschaften mehr erwarteten, versammelten sich am Nachmittage mehr Personen denn je. Der ehrwürdige Prälat, viele Domherren, der Lehrer der Rechtswissenschaft, zwei Priore von Mönchsklöstern und verschiedene andere Personen, die, wie man bald erfuhr, Se. Hochwürden zusammenberufen hatte, füllten den ganzen Platz vor dem Hause. Nur der Corregidor fehlte. Als alle versammelt waren, ergriff der Herr Bischof das Wort und sagte, daß, gerade weil gewisse Dinge in jenem Hause vorgefallen wären, seine Domherren und er wie früher kommen würden, damit weder die braven Müllersleute, noch die übrigen gegenwärtigen Personen vom öffentlichen Tadel betroffen würden, den nur jener verdiente, welcher durch sein rohes Betragen eine so gesittete, anständige Gesellschaft entweiht hatte. Er ermahnte die Seña Frasquita väterlich, fürderhin weniger herausfordernd und verführerisch in ihren Worten und Bewegungen zu sein, die Arme mehr bedeckt und den Ausschnitt des Kleides etwas höher zu tragen, riet dem Tio Lucas, seinen Vorgesetzten gegenüber mehr Uneigennützigkeit, größere Zurückhaltung und weniger Unbescheidenheit zu zeigen, gab dann schließlich seinen Segen, und da er an jenem Tage nicht fastete, würde er mit vielem Vergnügen ein paar Trauben essen. Dasselbe meinten alle, nämlich das letztere — und der Weinstock erzitterte den ganzen Nachmittag. — Der Müller schätzte den Konsum an Weintrauben auf zwei Arrobas.[10] — — Ungefähr drei Jahre lang dauerten diese angenehmen Zusammenkünfte, als wider alles Erwarten die Heere Napoleons in Spanien eindrangen und der Freiheitskrieg begann.
  • 57.
    Der Herr Bischof,der Magistrat und der Pönitentiar starben im Jahre 1808, und der Advokat und die übrigen Teilnehmer in den Jahren 9, 10, 11 und 12, weil sie den Anblick der Franzosen, Polen und anderer Raubtiere nicht ertragen konnten, welche in das Land einfielen und sogar im Presbyterium der Kirchen, während der Militärmesse, ihre Pfeifen rauchten! Der Corregidor, der nie wieder nach der Mühle kam, wurde durch einen französischen Marschall ersetzt und starb im Kerker in Madrid, weil er sich auch nicht einen Augenblick, zu seiner Ehre sei's gesagt, mit der Fremdherrschaft einverstanden erklären wollte. Doña Mercedes hat sich nicht wieder verheiratet und erzog ihre Kinder ganz ausgezeichnet. Im Alter zog sie sich in ein Kloster zurück und starb dort im Geruche der Heiligkeit. Garduña wurde französiert. Señor Juan Lopez kämpfte im Guerillakriege als Anführer und starb, gleich seinem Alguacil, in der berühmten Schlacht bei Baza, nachdem er sehr viele Franzosen getötet hatte. Zum Schluß: Tio Lucas und die Seña Frasquita, obgleich sie keine Kinder bekamen, trotzdem sie nach Solan de Cabras gegangen waren und viele Gelübde abgelegt hatten, liebten sich immer auf ihre Weise und erreichten ein hohes Alter. Sie sahen den Absolutismus in den Jahren 1812 und 1820 dahinsinken und ihn 1814 und 1823 wieder erscheinen, bis endlich nach dem Tode des Absoluten Königs die Konstitution eingeführt wurde; und sie schlummerten zu einem besseren Leben hinüber gerade beim Ausbruch des siebenjährigen Bürgerkrieges, ohne daß die damals schon allgemein getragenen Cylinderhüte j e n e Z e i t e n bei ihnen in Vergessenheit geraten ließen, welchen als Symbol diente — d e r D r e i s p i t z. E n d e .
  • 59.
    Fußnoten: [1] Zwei Neuntelvon allen Zehnten, die der König bekommt. [2] Suppe mit Gemüse und Fleisch. [3] Gleich nach der Suppe zu essen. [4] Volkstümlich für Señora Frasquita, Frau Fränzchen = Franziska. [5] Abendgesellschaft, Versammlung. [6] Que Dios guarde, den Gott erhalte, übliche Formel. [7] Es handelt sich hier um ein unübersetzbares Wortspiel zwischen males und animales. [8] »Ave, reinste Maria! Halb Eins und schönes Wetter!« Dies der gewöhnliche Ruf der Nachtwächter, die, weil die Nächte meist heiter (sereno) sind, hiervon auch vielleicht den Namen serenos erhalten haben. Regnet es, so fügen sie der Angabe der Zeit y lloviendo (und es regnet) hinzu. [9] pompa ist Pracht, Prunk, aber auch der Bausch, welchen die Frauenkleider beim Niederbeugen machen. [10] Eine Arroba gleich 11½ Kilogramm.
  • 60.
    Notizen des Bearbeiters Hinzugefügt:Inhaltsverzeichnis mit Links Das Umschlagbild wurde vom Bearbeiter gestaltet und in die Public Domain eingebracht.
  • 61.
    *** END OFTHE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DER DREISPITZ *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE
  • 62.
    THE FULL PROJECTGUTENBERG LICENSE
  • 63.
    PLEASE READ THISBEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
  • 64.
    1.C. The ProjectGutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
  • 65.
    This eBook isfor the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
  • 66.
    with active linksor immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
  • 67.
    about donations tothe Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
  • 68.
    damaged disk orother medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
  • 69.
    INCLUDING BUT NOTLIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
  • 70.
    remain freely availablefor generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
  • 71.
    small donations ($1to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
  • 72.
    Project Gutenberg™ eBooksare often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
  • 73.
    Welcome to ourwebsite – the ideal destination for book lovers and knowledge seekers. With a mission to inspire endlessly, we offer a vast collection of books, ranging from classic literary works to specialized publications, self-development books, and children's literature. Each book is a new journey of discovery, expanding knowledge and enriching the soul of the reade Our website is not just a platform for buying books, but a bridge connecting readers to the timeless values of culture and wisdom. With an elegant, user-friendly interface and an intelligent search system, we are committed to providing a quick and convenient shopping experience. Additionally, our special promotions and home delivery services ensure that you save time and fully enjoy the joy of reading. Let us accompany you on the journey of exploring knowledge and personal growth! ebookultra.com