Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 492

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Communication behaviours in a hospital setting: an observational study

Open access
Coiera, E., Tombs, V.·1998·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.316.7132.673

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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.