Emergency Department Workplace Interruptions Are Emergency Physicians "Interrupt-driven" and "Multitasking"?

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Although interruptions have been shown in aviation and other work settings to result in error with serious and sometimes fatal consequences, little is known about interruptions in the emergency department (ED). The authors conducted an observational, time-motion task-analysis study to determine the number and types of interruptions in the ED. Emergency physicians were observed in three EDs located in an urban teaching hospital, a suburban private teaching hospital, and a rural community hospital. A single investigator followed emergency staff physicians for 180-minute periods and recorded tasks, interruptions, and breaks-intask. An "interruption" was defined as any event that briefly required the attention of the subject but did not result in switching to a new task. A "break-intask" was defined as an event that required the attention of the physician for more than 10 seconds and subsequently resulted in changing tasks. The mean (+/-SD) total number of patients seen at all three sites during the 180-minute study period was 12.1 +/- 3.7 patients (range 5-20). Physicians performed a mean of 67.6 +/- 15.7 tasks per study period. The mean number of interruptions per 180-minute study period was 30.9 +/- 9.7 and the mean number of breaks-in-task was 20.7 +/- 6.3. Both the number of interruptions (r = 0.63; p < 0.001) and the number of breaks-in-task (r = 0.56; p < 0.001) per observation period were positively correlated with the average number of patients simultaneously managed. Emergency physicians are "interruptdriven." Emergency physicians are frequently interrupted and many interruptions result in breaks-in-task.

Related collections

Most cited references 14

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Systems analysis of adverse drug events. ADE Prevention Study Group.

M. J. Cooper, D. Cullen, D Bates … (1995)

To identify and evaluate the systems failures that underlie errors causing adverse drug events (ADEs) and potential ADEs. Systems analysis of events from a prospective cohort study. All admissions to 11 medical and surgical units in two tertiary care hospitals over a 6-month period. Errors, proximal causes, and systems failures. Errors were detected by interviews of those involved. Errors were classified according to proximal cause and underlying systems failure by multidisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and systems analysts. During this period, 334 errors were detected as the causes of 264 preventable ADEs and potential ADEs. Sixteen major systems failures were identified as the underlying causes of the errors. The most common systems failure was in the dissemination of drug knowledge, particularly to physicians, accounting for 29% of the 334 errors. Inadequate availability of patient information, such as the results of laboratory tests, was associated with 18% of errors. Seven systems failures accounted for 78% of the errors; all could be improved by better information systems. Hospital personnel willingly participated in the detection and investigation of drug use errors and were able to identify underlying systems failures. The most common defects were in systems to disseminate knowledge about drugs and to make drug and patient information readily accessible at the time it is needed. Systems changes to improve dissemination and display of drug and patient data should make errors in the use of drugs less likely.