The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Communication behaviours in a hospital setting: an observational study
Open accessAbstract
Abstract Objective: An exploratory study to identify patterns of communication behaviour among hospital based healthcare workers. Design: Non-participatory, qualitative observational study. Setting: British district general hospital. Subjects: Eight doctors and two nurses. Results: Communication behaviours resulted in an interruptive workplace, which seemed to contribute to inefficiency in work practice. Medical staff generated twice as many interruptions via telephone and paging systems as they received. Hypothesised causes for this level of interruption include a bias by staff to interruptive communication methods, a tendency to seek information from colleagues in preference to printed materials, and poor provision of information in support of contacting individuals in specific roles. Staff were observed to infer the intention of messages based on insufficient information, and clinical teams demonstrated complex communication patterns, which could lead to inefficiency. Conclusion: The results suggest a number of improvements to processes or technologies. Staff may need instruction in appropriate use of communication facilities. Further, excessive emphasis on information technology may be misguided since much may be gained by supporting information exchange through communication technology. Voicemail and email with acknowledgment, mobile communication, improved support for role based contact, and message screening may be beneficial in the hospital environment. Key messages We observed communication behaviour among 10 hospital based healthcare workers Communication behaviours resulted in an interruptive work place, which seemed to contribute to inefficiency in work practice Medical staff generated twice as many interruptions via telephone and paging systems as they received, and possible causes for this included a bias by staff to interruptive communication methods, a tendency to seek information from colleagues in preference to printed materials, and poor provision of information in support of contacting individuals in specific roles Staff were observed to infer the intention of messages based on insufficient information, and clinical teams showed complex communication patterns, which could lead to inefficiency We conclude that hospital staff may need instruction in appropriate use of communication facilities and that some communication technology—voicemail and email with acknowledgment, cellular telephones for mobile communication, improved support for role based contact, and message screening—may be beneficial
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
Jüni, P., Altman, D. G., & Egger, M. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42 · Cited by 3,309
The information‐seeking behaviour of doctors: a review of the evidence
Davies, K. (2007) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2007.00713.x · Cited by 356
Residents’ and Attending Physicians’ Handoffs: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Riesenberg, L. A., Leitzsch, J., Massucci, J. L., Jaeger, J., Rosenfeld, J. C., Patow, C., Padmore, J. S., & Karpovich, K. P. (2009) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181bf51a6 · Cited by 345
A review and a framework of handheld computer adoption in healthcare
Lu, Y.-C., Xiao, Y., Sears, A., & Jacko, J. A. (2005) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.03.001 · Cited by 315
Information overload within the health care system: a literature review
Hall, A., & Walton, G. (2004) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2004.00506.x · Cited by 238
Weigl, M., Müller, A., Vincent, C., Angerer, P., & Sevdalis, N. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000188 · Cited by 190
Australian health professions student use of social media
Usher, K., Woods, C., Casella, E., Glass, N., Wilson, R., Mayner, L., Jackson, D., Brown, J., Duffy, E., Mather, C., et al. (2014) · Collegian · doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2014.02.004 · Cited by 99
Morgan, P. L., Patrick, J., Waldron, S. M., King, S. L., & Patrick, T. (2009) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied · doi:10.1037/a0018008 · Cited by 58
Lok, U., & Gulacti, U. (2017) · Applied Clinical Informatics · doi:10.4338/aci-2017-04-ra-0064 · Cited by 39
Traditions of research into interruptions in healthcare: A conceptual review
McCurdie, T., Sanderson, P., & Aitken, L. M. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.11.005 · Cited by 37
Cutrona, S. L., Fouayzi, H., Burns, L., Sadasivam, R. S., Mazor, K. M., Gurwitz, J. H., Garber, L., Sundaresan, D., Houston, T. K., & Field, T. S. (2017) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4146-3 · Cited by 24
Metadata
- Authors
- Coiera, E., & Tombs, V.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1998-02-28
- Volume
- 316
- Issue
- 7132
- Pages
- 673-676
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2007132658
- Cited by
- 492
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 43.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.