Challenges in implementing digital health in clinical practice hinder its potential. The complexities posed by implementation could benefit from using design practices. To explore the current role of design practices in digital health implementation, designers in the Netherlands were interviewed. The preliminary results indicate that designers contribute to digital health implementation processes, especially in the early stages. Design practices are mainly used for engaging the users, testing concepts, aligning the ideas of stakeholders, and adapting interventions to fit within the contexts.

Digital health technologies, powered by digital data, provide an opportunity to improve the efficacy and efficiency of health systems at large. However, little is known about different approaches to the use of data for digital health design, or about their possible relations to system-level dynamics. In this contribution, we identify four existing approaches to the use of data for digital health design, namely the silent, the overt, the data-enabled, and the convergent. After characterising the approaches, we provide real-life examples of each. Furthermore, we compare the approaches in terms of selected desirable characteristics of the design process, highlighting relative advantages and disadvantages. Finally, we reflect on the system-level relevance of the differentiation between the approaches and point towards future research directions. Overall, the contribution provides researchers and practitioners with a broad conceptual framework to examine data-related challenges and opportunities in digital health design.

Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions are being increasingly implemented in health care environments, given their benefits for different stakeholders. However, the effects of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff are not always considered in RPM research and practice. Objective: This review explored how contemporary RPM interventions affect clinical staff and their workflows in perioperative settings. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of recent articles reporting the impact of RPM interventions implemented in perioperative settings on clinical staff and their workflow. The databases accessed were Embase and PubMed. A qualitative analysis was performed to identify the main problems and advantages that RPM brings to staff, in addition to the approaches taken to evaluate the impact of those interventions. Different themes were identified in terms of the challenges of RPM for clinical staff as well as in terms of benefits, risk-reduction strategies, and methods for measuring the impact of these interventions on the workflow of clinical staff. Results: A total of 1063 papers were found during the initial search, of which 21 (1.98%) met the inclusion criteria. Of the 21 included papers, 15 (71%) focused on evaluating new RPM systems, 4 (19%) focused on existing systems, and 2 (10%) were reviews. Conclusions: The reviewed literature shows that the impact on staff work experience is a crucial factor to consider when developing and implementing RPM interventions in perioperative settings. However, we noticed both underdevelopment and lack of standardization in the methods for assessing the impact of these interventions on clinical staff and their workflow. On the basis of the reviewed literature, we recommend the development of more robust methods for evaluating the impact of RPM interventions on staff experience in perioperative care; the adoption of a stronger focus on transition management when introducing these interventions in clinical practice; and the inclusion of longer periods of assessment, including the evaluation of long-term goals.