IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i13p5595-d1425824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systemic Review on the Adoption of Service Design Practices to Improve the Quality of User Experience and Organization in the Healthcare Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Angela Cristiana Palazzo

    (Department of Architecture, University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Matteo Bertelli

    (Department of Architecture, University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Jacopo Gaspari

    (Department of Architecture, University of Bologna, 40136 Bologna, Italy)

Abstract

Healthcare services and spaces are recognized as complex ecosystems where different user categories interact daily facing often urgent and difficult situations that challenge the established organizational and procedural models. The increasingly evolving needs and conditions influencing the processes affect the capacity to quickly adapt the available operational models as well as spaces to provide a timely and efficient response. This calls for new approaches and methods to enable the managing staff to overcome the conventional silos-based structure and integrate new methods and tools to facilitate interdisciplinary analysis and synergies. Some frontrunning healthcare structures started to adopt Service Design practices, which are largely grounded in the Design Thinking approach, to reshape the conventional models for improving the quality of user experience with remarkable expected impacts on social, economic, and environmental sustainability in the mid-long run. Following the rigorous investigation structure of Systemic Review, the paper explores the adoption of Service Design practices in frontrunner experiences focusing on organizational aspects to draft a reference framework, including successful factors, barriers, and viable pathways, which are currently missing. The main scope of the paper is accordingly to address the detected gaps in clarifying methods tools and goals of Service Design-oriented practices for improving healthcare processes and user experience quality. The main reported findings highlight the importance of introducing Co-Design and participative practices to integrate specialistic perspectives and organizational aspects as well as to engage all the key players at different levels.

Suggested Citation

  • Angela Cristiana Palazzo & Matteo Bertelli & Jacopo Gaspari, 2024. "A Systemic Review on the Adoption of Service Design Practices to Improve the Quality of User Experience and Organization in the Healthcare Environment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-20, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:13:p:5595-:d:1425824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/13/5595/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/13/5595/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Timothy P. Johnson & Mary K. Feeney & Heyjie Jung & Ashlee Frandell & Mattia Caldarulo & Lesley Michalegko & Shaika Islam & Eric W. Welch, 2021. "Correction: COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university-based scientists in the U.S," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-1, December.
    2. Ryan, Mandy & Kinghorn, Philip & Entwistle, Vikki A. & Francis, Jill J., 2014. "Valuing patients' experiences of healthcare processes: Towards broader applications of existing methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 194-203.
    3. Eun-Jeong Kim & Inn-Chul Nam & Yoo-Ri Koo, 2022. "Reframing Patient Experience Approaches and Methods to Achieve Patient-Centeredness in Healthcare: Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Timothy P. Johnson & Mary K. Feeney & Heyjie Jung & Ashlee Frandell & Mattia Caldarulo & Lesley Michalegko & Shaika Islam & Eric W. Welch, 2021. "COVID-19 and the academy: opinions and experiences of university-based scientists in the U.S," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-7, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jackson, Louise & Al-Janabi, Hareth & Roberts, Tracy & Ross, Jonthan, 2021. "Exploring young people's preferences for STI screening in the UK: A qualitative study and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    2. Joanna Coast, 2019. "Assessing capability in economic evaluation: a life course approach?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 779-784, August.
    3. Ruben Andreas Sakowsky, 2021. "Disentangling the welfarism/extra‐welfarism distinction: Towards a more fine‐grained categorization," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(9), pages 2307-2311, September.
    4. Herlitz, Anders & Horan, David, 2016. "Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 96-102.
    5. Jamie Beverstock & Martyn Pickersgill, 2022. "Producing knowledge in a pandemic: Accounts from UK-based postdoctoral biomedical scientists of undertaking research during the COVID-19 pandemic," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Gabriella Piscopo & Simona Mormile & Paola Adinolfi & Andrzej Piotrowski, 2023. "Digital Health, Telemedicine, and Patient-centeredness: New Trends for Italian Healthcare after COVID-19," MECOSAN, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(125), pages 29-46.
    7. Mary K. Feeney & Heyjie Jung & Timothy P. Johnson & Eric W. Welch, 2023. "U.S. Visa and Immigration Policy Challenges: Explanations for Faculty Perceptions and Intent to Leave," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(7), pages 1031-1057, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:13:p:5595-:d:1425824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.