Objective: While existing research by our team has demonstrated the feasibility of building a decentralized identity management application (‘MediLinker’) for health information, there are implementation issues related to testing such blockchain-based health applications in real-world clinical settings. In this study, we identified clinical, organizational and regulatory, and ethical and social (CORES) issues, including recommendations, associated with deploying MediLinker, and blockchain in general, for clinical testing. Method: CORES issues and recommendations were identified through a focus group with 11 academic, industry, and government experts on March 26, 2021. They were grouped according to their expertise: clinical care (n = 4), organizational and regulatory concerns (n = 4), and ethical and social issues (n = 3). The focus group was conducted via Zoom in which experts were briefed about the study aims, formed into breakout groups to identify key issues based on their group’s expertise, and reconvened to share identified issues with other groups and to discuss potential recommendations to address such issues. The focus group was video recorded and transcribed. The resulting transcriptions and meeting notes were imported to MAXQDA 2018 for thematic analysis. Results: Clinical experts identified issues that concern the clinical system, clinical administrators, clinicians, and patients. Organizational and regulatory experts emphasized issues on accountability, compliance, and legal safeguards. Ethics and social-context experts raised issues on trust, transparency, digital divide, and health-related digital autonomy. Accordingly, experts proposed six recommendations that could address most of the identified issues: (1) Design interfaces based on patient preferences; (2) ensure testing with diverse populations; (3) ensure compliance with existing policies; (4) present potential positive outcomes to top management; (5) maintain clinical workflow; and (6) increase the public’s awareness of blockchain. Conclusion: This study identified a myriad of CORES issues associated with deploying MediLinker in clinical settings. Moreover, the study also uncovered several recommendations that could address such issues. The findings raise awareness on CORES issues that should be considered when designing, developing, and deploying blockchain for healthcare. Further, the findings provide additional insights into the development of MediLinker from a prototype to a minimum viable product for clinical testing. Future studies can use CORES as a socio-technical model to identify issues and recommendations associated with deploying health information technologies in clinical settings.
Harrell D, Muhammad U, Hanson L, Abdul-Moheeth M, Desai I, Shriram J. Technical design and development of a self-sovereign identity management platform for patient-centric healthcare using blockchain technology. BHTY. 2022;(1).
2.
Khurshid A, Holan C, Cowley C, Alexander J, Harrell DT, Usman M, et al. Designing and testing a blockchain application for patient identity management in healthcare. JAMIA Open. 2021;4(3).
3.
Bautista J, Muhammad U, Harrell D, Desai I, Holan C, Cowley C. Qualitative study of participant impressions as simulated patients of Medilinker-A blockchain-based identity verification application.
4.
Abdul-Moheeth M, Muhammad U, Harrell D, Khurshid A. Improving transitions of care: Designing a blockchain application for patient identity management. BHTY. 2022;(1).
5.
Tzinis I. Technology readiness level [Internet]. 2015;
6.
Straub J. In search of technology readiness level (TRL) 10. Aerospace Science and Technology. 2015;46:312–20.
7.
Dubovitskaya A, Novotny P, Xu Z, Wang F. Applications of Blockchain Technology for Data-Sharing in Oncology: Results from a Systematic Literature Review. Oncology. 2019;98(6):403–11.
8.
Holm K, Goduscheit R. Assessing the technology readiness level of current blockchain use cases. 2020;1–6.
9.
Rahmadika S, Rhee KH. Blockchain technology for providing an architecture model of decentralized personal health information. International Journal of Engineering Business Management. 2018;10.
10.
Bostrom RP, Heinen JS. MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-Technical Perspective, Part II: The Application of Socio-Technical Theory. MIS Quarterly. 1977;1(4):11.
11.
Shin D, Ibahrine M. The socio-technical assemblages of blockchain system: how blockchains are framed and how the framing reflects societal contexts. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance. 2020;22(3):245–63.
12.
Ash JS. Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System-related Errors. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2003;11(2):104–12.
13.
Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended Consequences of Information Technologies in Health Care--An Interactive Sociotechnical Analysis. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2007;14(5):542–9.
14.
Charles W, Marler N, Long L, Manion S. Blockchain Compliance by Design: Regulatory Considerations for Blockchain in Clinical Research. Frontiers in Blockchain. 2019;2.
15.
Durneva P, Cousins K, Chen M. The Current State of Research, Challenges, and Future Research Directions of Blockchain Technology in Patient Care: Systematic Review. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(7):e18619.
16.
Lapointe C, Fishbane L. The Blockchain Ethical Design Framework. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization. 2019;12(3–4):50–71.
17.
Mackey TK, Kuo TT, Gummadi B, Clauson KA, Church G, Grishin D, et al. ‘Fit-for-purpose?’ – challenges and opportunities for applications of blockchain technology in the future of healthcare. BMC Medicine. 2019;17(1).
18.
Balasubramanian S, Shukla V, Sethi JS, Islam N, Saloum R. A readiness assessment framework for Blockchain adoption: A healthcare case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;165:120536.
19.
Srivastava V, Mahara T, Yadav P. An analysis of the ethical challenges of blockchain-enabled E-healthcare applications in 6G networks. International Journal of Cognitive Computing in Engineering. 2021;2:171–9.
20.
de Korte EM, Wiezer N, Janssen JH, Vink P, Kraaij W. Evaluating an mHealth App for Health and Well-Being at Work: Mixed-Method Qualitative Study. JMIR mHealth and uHealth. 2018;6(3):e72.
21.
Vosbergen S, Mahieu GR, Laan EK, Kraaijenhagen RA, Jaspers MW, Peek N. Evaluating a Web-Based Health Risk Assessment With Tailored Feedback: What Does an Expert Focus Group Yield Compared to a Web-Based End-User Survey? Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2014;16(1):e1.
22.
Tracy S. Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. 2nd ed.
23.
Shenton AK. Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information. 2004;22(2):63–75.
24.
Evans M. Hospitals give tech giants access to detailed medical records. Wall Street Journal. 2020;
25.
Wetsman N. Hospitals are selling treasure troves of medical datawhat could go wrong?-The Verge. 2021;
26.
Tinianow A. Blockchain technology is already improving lives at 22 hospitals [Internet]. 2019;
27.
Healthcare rallies for blockchains: Keeping patients at the center. 2016;
28.
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 [Internet]. ASPE. Clinical, organizational and regulatory, and ethical and social (CORES) 1996.
29.
Harris DA, Haskell J, Cooper E, Crouse N, Gardner R. Estimating the association between burnout and electronic health record-related stress among advanced practice registered nurses. Applied Nursing Research. 2018;43:36–41.
30.
Kroth PJ, Morioka-Douglas N, Veres S, Babbott S, Poplau S, Qeadan F, et al. Association of Electronic Health Record Design and Use Factors With Clinician Stress and Burnout. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(8):e199609.
31.
Sanders C, Burnett K, Lam S, Hassan M, Skinner K. “You Need ID to Get ID”: A Scoping Review of Personal Identification as a Barrier to and Facilitator of the Social Determinants of Health in North America. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(12):4227.
32.
KAPLAN B. How Should Health Data Be Used? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2016;25(2):312–29.
33.
Xie H, Prybutok G, Peng X, Prybutok V. Determinants of Trust in Health Information Technology: An Empirical Investigation in the Context of an Online Clinic Appointment System. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction. 2020;36(12):1095–109.
34.
Or CKL, Karsh BT. A Systematic Review of Patient Acceptance of Consumer Health Information Technology. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2009;16(4):550–60.
35.
Wolff JL, Darer JD, Larsen KL. Family Caregivers and Consumer Health Information Technology. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2015;31(1):117–21.
36.
Lee K, Lim K, Jung SY, Ji H, Hong K, Hwang H, et al. Perspectives of Patients, Health Care Professionals, and Developers Toward Blockchain-Based Health Information Exchange: Qualitative Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research. 2020;22(11):e18582.
37.
Campbell BR, Ingersoll KS, Flickinger TE, Dillingham R. Bridging the digital health divide: toward equitable global access to mobile health interventions for people living with HIV. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy. 2019;17(3):141–4.
38.
Campbell BR, Ingersoll KS, Flickinger TE, Dillingham R. Bridging the digital health divide: toward equitable global access to mobile health interventions for people living with HIV. Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy. 2019;17(3):141–4.
39.
Sieck CJ, Sheon A, Ancker JS, Castek J, Callahan B, Siefer A. Digital inclusion as a social determinant of health. npj Digital Medicine. 2021;4(1).
40.
Laacke S, Mueller R, Schomerus G, Salloch S. Artificial Intelligence, Social Media and Depression. A New Concept of Health-Related Digital Autonomy. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2021;21(7):4–20.
41.
2019;
42.
2017;
43.
Ehrenberg AJ, King JL. Blockchain in Context. Information Systems Frontiers. 2019;22(1):29–35.
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
