Table 3 Descriptive analysis of results of Expert survey
| Â | Â | Considerations | Decision | Final Item |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Q1 | Allocation of financial resources to the system | Ranked in top half of table. Correlates with q.2 (0.527) and q. 18 (0.531) | retain | Allocation of financial resources to the system |
Q2 | Allocation of organizational effort to the system | Third highest mean rating score. Correlates with q.1 (0.527). | retain | Allocation of organizational effort to the system |
Q3 | Impact of the system on existing ways of working | Ranked no 1 in importance. No r’s > 0.5. | retain | Impact of the system on existing ways of working |
Q4 | Balance of effort against rewards of using the system | Ranked 5th. Doesn’t correlate well with any other item | retain | Balance of effort against rewards of using the system |
Q5 | Impact of the system on individual’s perceptions of autonomy in their work | Mid-table in importance ratings. Correlates with q.9 (r 0.573). | retain | Impact of the system on individual’s perceptions of autonomy in their work |
Q6 | level of co-operation required from others within the organisation, in using the system | Ranked 8th. Correlates with q.7 (0.560). | Combine 6 and 7 | Level of co-operation required by others in using the system |
Q7 | level of co-operation required from others outside the organisation, in using the system | Correlates with q.6 (0.560), but most correlations near zero. (ranked 5th from bottom) | Â | Â |
Q8 | Additional workload created by the system | Ranked 4th in importance. No r’s above 0.5, but approaching that on q. 26 and 27. | retain | Additional workload created by the system |
Q9 | Impact of the system on allocation of work between individuals | Correlates with q.5 (r 0.573). | retain | Impact of the system on allocation of work between individuals |
Q10 | Compatibility of the system with existing skills | Ranked mid-table. Correlates with q.11 (0.519) | retain | Compatibility of the system with existing skills |
Q11 | Obtainability of new skills required to use the system | Ranked 11th. Correlates with q.10 (0.519). Several significant (but low) correlations with other items. | retain | Obtainability of new skills required to use the system |
Q12 | Impact of the system on individuals’ perceptions of personal liability | Ranked 3rd from bottom. Correlates with q. 17 (r .564) & 18 (r .569). Correlations < but approaching 0.5 for q. 13 & 14. | exclude |  |
Q13 | Individuals’ own confidence in the safety of using the system | Ranked mid-table. High r (0.725) with q. 14. Correlates with q. 18 (0.565). Approaches 0.5 with q.12. | Combine 13 and 14 | Individuals’ own confidence in the safety of using the system |
Q14 | Individuals’ confidence in the safety of others’ use of the system | Ranked least important. High r (0.725) with q. 13, and correlates with q.18 (0.531). Approaches 0.5 with q.12. |  |  |
Q15 | Individuals’ perceptions of the efficiency of using the system | Ranked mid-table. No correlations > 0.5. | Retain | Individuals’ perceptions of the efficiency of using the system |
Q16 | Impact of the system on the distribution of  responsibilities  between individuals | Ranked in bottom half. No correlations > 0.5. | Retain | Impact of the system on the distribution of responsibilities between individuals |
Q17 | Impact of the system on individuals’ beliefs about their accountability for their work | Ranked near bottom. High r with Q.18 (0.806). Correlates with q. 12 (r .564) | retain | Impact of the system on individuals’ beliefs about their accountability for their work |
Q18 | Impact of the system on individuals’ beliefs about  others’ expectations  of their accountability for their work | Ranked second bottom. High r with Q.17 (0.806). Correlates with q. 12 (r .569), 13 (0.565) and q.14 (0.531). | Exclude question |  |
Q19 | Availability of  technical expertise  in using the system | Ranked in top half. Correlates with q.21 (0.557) & 25 (0.581). | retain | Availability of technical expertise in using the system |
Q20 | Availability of an  evidence base  about the clinical effectiveness of the system | Ranked in bottom half. High r with Q.21 (0.721). Also r 0.619 with Q.24. | Combine 20 and 21 | Availability of evidence about the clinical effectiveness of the system |
Q21 | Availability of  users’  knowledge of the clinical effectiveness of the system | Ranked in bottom half. High r with Q.20 (0.721). Correlates with q.19 (0.557), q. 24 (0.517) & q.25 (0.514). |  |  |
Q22 | How flexibly the system can be used for conducting work | Ranked in top half. Correlates with q.23 (0.533). | retain | How flexibly the system can be used for conducting work |
Q23 | Perceived impact of the system on  ways of working with  patients | Ranked 6th in importance. Correlates with Q.22 (0.533). & q.25 (0.586). | Retain | Perceived impact of the system on ways of working with patients |
Q24 | Perceived impact of the system on  outcomes  for patients | Ranked mid-table. Correlates with Q.20 (0.619) & q.21 (0.517). | retain | Perceived impact of the system on outcomes for patients |
Q25 | Perceived impact of the system on  communication  with patients | Ranked mid-table. Correlates with q.19 (0.581), q. 21 (0.514) & q.23 (0.586). | Exclude (covered in q 23) |  |
Q26 | Perceived impact of the system on the  amount of time  spent with patients | Ranked in top half. Approaches 0.50 with q.8. & q.25. | retain | Perceived impact of the system on the amount of time spent with patients |
Q27 | Ease of using the system | Ranked second highest in importance. Doesn’t correlate > .05 with any item. | retain | Ease of using the system |