Cited by 30Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPersonal Information Management and User Behavior

Differentiating between detrimental and beneficial interruptions: a mixed-methods study

Myers, Robert A, McCarthy, Mary C, Whitlatch, Amelia, Parikh, Pratik J·2016·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Introduction: Efforts to understand interruptions now span much of the last decade and a half. Often thought to negatively impact patient safety, some now acknowledge that interruptions may be beneficial and actually necessary for safety and high quality care. This study seeks a framework for differentiating between interruptions that are detrimental and those that are beneficial. Methods: A mixed-methods approach at a US Level 1 trauma centre included direct observation of 13 registered nurses (RNs), survey of 47 RNs, retrospective observation of hands-free communication devices, and modelling of observed interruptions to key performance measures. Results: On average, RNs were interrupted every 11 min, with 20.3% of their workload triggered by interruptions. While 85% of RNs agreed that interruptions place their patients at risk, only 21% agreed that all should be eliminated. During one 90-min period, 18 original events spawned 68 interruptions, 50 of these repeat messages. A statistical model, with patient measures of time and comfort, revealed that alarms and call lights returning RN's attention to the patient outside the patient room are beneficial, while interruptions in the patient room are generally detrimental. Triangulating the results, we present an emerging framework for differentiating between beneficial and detrimental interruptions based on the impact of interruptions on the RN's steady treatment and attention to the patient. Conclusions: A mixed-methods approach can help distinguish between detrimental and beneficial interruptions. While interruptions breaking the delivery of steady treatment and attention to the patient are detrimental, those returning the RN's focus to the patient, as well as those supporting patient-clinician and clinician-clinician communications are beneficial. This insight may be helpful to healthcare delivery teams tasked with improving interruption-laden processes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004401

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Some kinds of interruptions, especially those providing necessary informational content for the initial task, contributed to improving nurses' cognitive processes and allowed them to achieve fast and efficient patient care.

    “In a study by McCurdie et al. [5, 12], some kinds of interruptions, especially those providing necessary informational content for the initial task, contributed to improving nurses’ cognitive processes, allowing them to achieve fast and efficient patient care [4].”
  • Some interruptions, especially those leading to nursing task switching, might be beneficial and necessary for the quality of the task.

    “some interruptions, especially those leading to nursing task switching, might be beneficial and necessary for the quality of the task [4, 5].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myers, R. A., McCarthy, M. C., Whitlatch, A., & Parikh, P. J.
Affiliations
  • Wright State University (US)
  • Miami Valley Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Parikh, Pratik J
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-11-16
Volume
25
Issue
11
Pages
881-888
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2236370404
Cited by
30
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
Keywords
patient safety, registered nurses, nursing workload, patient comfort, patient-clinician communication, trauma care
MeSH terms
Patient Comfort, Humans, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Retrospective Studies, Task Performance and Analysis, Time Factors, Trauma Centers, Models, Statistical, Workload, Process Assessment, Health Care, Workflow, Patient Safety

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