Multitasking in postanesthesia care unit following nurse interruptions, an analysis of the causes and consequences using classification tree: an observational prospective study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU) is an environment associated with an important workload which is susceptible to lead to task interruption (TI), leading to task-switching or concurrent multitasking. The objective of the study was to determine the predictors of the reaction of the nurses facing TI and assess those who lead to an alteration of the initial task. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study into the PACU of a university hospital during February 2017. Among 18 nurses, a selected one was observed each day, documenting for each TI the reaction of the nurse (task switching or concurrent multitasking), and the characteristics associated with the TI. We performed classification tree analyses using C5.0 algorithm in order to select the main predictors of the type of multitasking performed and the alteration of the initial task. RESULTS: We observed 1119 TI during 132 hours (8.5 TI/hour). The main reaction was concurrent multitasking (805 TI, 72%). The short duration of the task interruption (one minute or less) was the most important predictor leading to concurrent multitasking. Other predictors of response to TI were the identity of the task interrupter and the number of nurses present. Regarding the consequences of the task switching, long interruption (more than five minutes) was the most important predictor of the alteration of the initial task. CONCLUSIONS: By analysing the predictors of the type of multitasking in front of TI, we propose a novel approach to understanding TI, offering new perspective for prevention strategies.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When nurses are interrupted in their task, their attention is shifted from the initial process to the new process with a decay of the memory of the initial process; this leads to an increase in response time when returning to the initial task or even the nurse starting the initial task over and hence a likelihood of overwhelmed cognitive capacities and decreased productivity and accuracy in the EH
“when the nurses are interrupted in their task, their attention is shifted from the initial process to the new process with a decay of the memory of the initial process; this leads to an increase in response time when returning to the initial task or even the nurse starting the initial task over and hence a likelihood of overwhelmed cognitive capacities [14] and decreased productivity and accuracy”
From Workflow interruption and nurses’ mental workload in electronic health record tasks: An observational study (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System
Hendee, W. R. (2001) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1051-0443(01)70072-3 · Cited by 10,122 · see citing works
Reason, J. (1990) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139062367 · Cited by 5,108 · see citing works
Control of Cognitive Processes: Attention and Performance XVIII
Monsell, S., & Driver, J. (2000) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1,451 · see citing works
Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.27.4.763 · Cited by 1,207 · see citing works
Executive control of cognitive processes in task switching.
Rubinstein, J. S., Meyer, D. E., & Evans, J. E. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.27.4.763 · Cited by 873 · see citing works
Association of Interruptions With an Increased Risk and Severity of Medication Administration Errors
Westbrook, J. I. (2010) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.65 · Cited by 772 · see citing works
Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Strayer, D. L., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. M. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0054402 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: review and reappraisal
Rivera-Rodriguez, A. J., & Karsh, B.-T. (2010) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qshc.2009.033282 · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Westbrook, J. I., Raban, M. Z., Walter, S. R., & Douglas, H. (2018) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007333 · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Impact of interruptions and distractions on dispensing errors in an ambulatory care pharmacy
Flynn, E. A., Barker, K. N., Gibson, J. T., Pearson, R. E., Berger, B. A., & Smith, L. A. (1999) · American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy · doi:10.1093/ajhp/56.13.1319 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
The problem state: A cognitive bottleneck in multitasking.
Borst, J. P., Taatgen, N. A., & van Rijn, H. (2010) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition · doi:10.1037/a0018106 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Task Switching and Multitask Performance
Pashler, H. (2000) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/1481.003.0021 · Cited by 188 · see citing works
Interruptions in emergency department work: an observational and interview study
Berg, L. M., Källberg, A.-S., Göransson, K. E., Östergren, J., Florin, J., & Ehrenberg, A. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001967 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Walter, S. R., Li, L., Dunsmuir, W. T. M., & Westbrook, J. I. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002097 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Douglas, H., Raban, M. Z., Walter, S. R., & Westbrook, J. I. (2016) · Applied Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2016.08.021 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Weigl, M., Müller, A., Holland, S., Wedel, S., & Woloshynowych, M. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003744 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Concurrent task effects on memory retrieval
Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2003) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/bf03196472 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Distraction and interruption in anaesthetic practice
Campbell, G., Arfanis, K., & Smith, A. F. (2012) · British Journal of Anaesthesia · doi:10.1093/bja/aes219 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Interruptions and Delivery of Care in the Intensive Care Unit
Drews, F. A., Markewitz, B. A., Stoddard, G. J., & Samore, M. H. (2019) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/0018720819838090 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Microanalysis of video from the operating room: an underused approach to patient safety research
Bezemer, J., Cope, A., Korkiakangas, T., et al. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005816 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
The functional neuroanatomy of multitasking: Combining dual tasking with a short term memory task
Deprez, S., Vandenbulcke, M., Peeters, R., Emsell, L., Amant, F., & Sunaert, S. (2013) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.07.024 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Decision Making in Concurrent Multitasking: Do People Adapt to Task Interference?
Nijboer, M., Taatgen, N. A., Brands, A., Borst, J. P., & van Rijn, H. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079583 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Multitasking During Patient Handover in the Recovery Room
van Rensen, E. L. J., Groen, E. S. T., Numan, S. C., Smit, M. J., Cremer, O. L., Tates, K., & Kalkman, C. J. (2012) · Anesthesia & Analgesia · doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31826996a2 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Freischlag, J. A. (2011) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000517 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Mindfulness, Multitasking, and You
Powell, S. K. (2016) · Professional Case Management · doi:10.1097/ncm.0000000000000141 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Shan, Y., Shang, J., Yan, Y., & Ye, X. (2023) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-023-01209-9 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vacheron, C.-H., Peyrouset, O., Incagnoli, P., Charra, V., Parat, S., David, J.-S., Theissen, A., Piriou, V., & Friggeri, A.
- Affiliations
- Lyon 1 Université (FR)
- Hospices Civils de Lyon (FR)
- Princess Grace Hospital Centre (MC)
- Corresponding author
- Vacheron, Charles-Hervé
- Venue
- Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition)
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-05
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 267-275
- ISSN
- 0104-0014 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10240234
- OpenAlex
- W3169731598
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology (English Edition) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing education and management
- Keywords
- task interruption, multitasking, task switching, post-anesthesia care unit, nurses, nursing workload, interruption duration, predictors of treatment response, classification trees, C5.0 algorithm
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Prospective Studies, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Workload
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
