Interruptions in Workflow for RNs in a Level One Trauma Center

An understanding of interruptions in healthcare is important for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information systems and for the management of clinical workflow and medical errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and classify the types of interruptions experienced by Emergency Department(ED) nurses working in a Level One Trauma Center. This was an observational field study of Registered Nurses (RNs) employed in a Level One Trauma Center using the shadowing method. Results of the study indicate that nurses were both recipients and initiators of interruptions. Telephones, pagers, and face-to-face conversations were the most common sources of interruptions. Unlike other industries, the healthcare community has not systematically studied interruptions in clinical settings to determine and weigh the necessity of the interruption against their sometimes negative results such as medical errors, decreased efficiency, and increased costs. Our study presented here is an initial step to understand the nature, causes, and effects of interruptions, thereby improving both the quality of healthcare and patient safety. We developed an ethnographic data collection technique and a data coding method for the capturing and analysis of interruptions. The interruption data we collected are systematic, comprehensive, and close to exhaustive. They confirmed the findings from earlier studies by other researchers that interruptions are frequent events in critical care and other healthcare settings. We are currently using these data to analyze the workflow dynamics of ED clinicians, to identify the bottlenecks of information flow, and to develop interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency care through the management of interruptions.

Computerized provider order entry adoption: implications for clinical workflow.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe unintended adverse consequences related to clinical workflow when implementing or using computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. METHODS: We analyzed qualitative data from field observations and formal interviews gathered over a three-year period at five hospitals in three organizations. Five multidisciplinary researchers worked together to identify themes related to the impacts of CPOE systems on clinical workflow. RESULTS: CPOE systems can affect clinical work by 1) introducing or exposing human/computer interaction problems, 2) altering the pace, sequencing, and dynamics of clinical activities, 3) providing only partial support for the work activities of all types of clinical personnel, 4) reducing clinical situation awareness, and 5) poorly reflecting organizational policy and procedure. CONCLUSIONS: As CPOE systems evolve, those involved must take care to mitigate the many unintended adverse effects these systems have on clinical workflow. Workflow issues resulting from CPOE can be mitigated by iteratively altering both clinical workflow and the CPOE system until a satisfactory fit is achieved.

Interruptions in workflow for RNs in a Level One Trauma Center.

An understanding of interruptions in healthcare is important for the design, implementation, and evaluation of health information systems and for the management of clinical workflow and medical errors. The purpose of this study is to identify and classify the types of interruptions experienced by ED nurses working in a Level One Trauma Center. This was an observational field study of Registered Nurses employed in a Level One Trauma Center using the shadowing method. Results of the study indicate that nurses were both recipients and initiators of interruptions. Telephone, pagers, and face-to-face conversations were the most common sources of interruptions. Unlike other industries, the outcomes caused by interruptions resulting in medical errors, decreased efficiency and increased cost have not been systematically studied in healthcare. Our study presented here is an initial step to understand the nature, causes, and effects of interruptions, and to develop interventions to manage interruptions to improve healthcare quality and patient safety. We developed an ethnographic data collection technique and a data coding method for the capturing and analysis of interruptions. The interruption data we collected are systematic, comprehensive, and close to exhaustive. They confirmed the findings from early studies by other researchers that interruptions are frequent events in critical care and other healthcare settings. We are currently using these data to analyze the workflow dynamics of ED clinicians, identify the bottlenecks of information flow, and develop interventions to improve the efficiency of emergency care through the management of interruptions.

Clinical decision support capabilities of commercially-available clinical information systems.

BACKGROUND: The most effective decision support systems are integrated with clinical information systems, such as inpatient and outpatient electronic health records (EHRs) and computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems. Purpose The goal of this project was to describe and quantify the results of a study of decision support capabilities in Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) certified electronic health record systems. METHODS: The authors conducted a series of interviews with representatives of nine commercially available clinical information systems, evaluating their capabilities against 42 different clinical decision support features. RESULTS: Six of the nine reviewed systems offered all the applicable event-driven, action-oriented, real-time clinical decision support triggers required for initiating clinical decision support interventions. Five of the nine systems could access all the patient-specific data items identified as necessary. Six of the nine systems supported all the intervention types identified as necessary to allow clinical information systems to tailor their interventions based on the severity of the clinical situation and the user's workflow. Only one system supported all the offered choices identified as key to allowing physicians to take action directly from within the alert. Discussion The principal finding relates to system-by-system variability. The best system in our analysis had only a single missing feature (from 42 total) while the worst had eighteen.This dramatic variability in CDS capability among commercially available systems was unexpected and is a cause for concern. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for four distinct constituencies: purchasers of clinical information systems, developers of clinical decision support, vendors of clinical information systems and certification bodies.