From FRAM Guidelines to Reality

Incorporating Stakeholder Variability in Work-as-Done in Healthcare

Journal Article (2025)
Author(s)

N.M. Luijcks (TU Delft - Safety and Security Science)

P.J. Marang-van de Mheen (TU Delft - Safety and Security Science)

Maarten J. van der Laan (University Medical Center Groningen)

J. Groeneweg (TU Delft - Safety and Security Science, Universiteit Leiden, TNO)

Research Group
Safety and Security Science
DOI related publication
https://doi.org/10.3390/safety11030066 Final published version
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Research Group
Safety and Security Science
Journal title
Safety
Issue number
3
Volume number
11
Article number
66
Downloads counter
174
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Background: The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) analyses discrepancies between written protocols (Work-as-Imagined) and real-world practice (Work-as-Done) in healthcare. Work-as-Done is created based on multiple stakeholders, leading to variability in reported functions. No guidance exists how to manage this variability. This study examines between-stakeholder variation in Work-as-Done and its impact on differences from Work-as-Imagined in FRAM visualisations. Methods: Two FRAM studies were analysed: delirium diagnosis and treatment (1) and perioperative anticoagulant management in two hospitals (2). Heatmaps visualised between-stakeholder variability of reported functions in Work-as-Done. We assessed the impact of including only functions shared by multiple stakeholders on Work-as-Imagined versus Work-as-Done comparisons. Results: In study 1, 23 of 33 functions were shared among at least two stakeholders. In study 2, stakeholders shared 30 of 33 functions in Hospital 1 and 29 of 32 functions in Hospital 2. Including or excluding functions, e.g., only mentioned by one stakeholder, influenced the observed differences between Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done. Conclusions: Between-stakeholder variability in both studies influenced differences between Work-as-Imagined and Work-as-Done, which often is the starting point improving the process. Showing between-stakeholder variability in FRAM studies enhances transparency in researcher decision-making. This supports more informed analysis and discussion in process improvement efforts.