Abstract
BACKGROUND: The interplay between the workflow for clinical tasks and research data collection is often overlooked, ultimately making it ineffective. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have developed standards that allow for the comparison of workflow models derived from clinical and research tasks toward the improvement of data collection processes. METHODS: In this study we used the term dissonance for the occurrences where there was a discord between clinical and research workflows. We developed workflow models for a translational research study in psychiatry and the clinic where its data collection was carried out. After identifying points of dissonance between clinical and research models we derived a corresponding classification system that ultimately enabled us to re-engineer the data collection workflow. We considered (1) the number of patients approached for enrollment and (2) the number of patients enrolled in the study as indicators of efficiency in research workflow. We also recorded the number of dissonances before and after the workflow modification. RESULTS: We identified 22 episodes of dissonance across 6 dissonance categories: actor, communication, information, artifact, time, and space. We were able to eliminate 18 episodes of dissonance and increase the number of patients approached and enrolled in research study trough workflow modification. CONCLUSION: The classification developed in this study is useful for guiding the identification of dissonances and reveal modifications required to align the workflow of data collection and the clinical setting. The methodology described in this study can be used by researchers to standardize data collection process.