The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of interruptions on clinical task completion
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Interruptions and multitasking are implicated as a major cause of clinical inefficiency and error. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to measure the association between emergency doctors' rates of interruption and task completion times and rates. METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective observational time and motion study in the emergency department of a 400-bed teaching hospital. Forty doctors (91% of medical staff) were observed for 210.45 h on weekdays. The authors calculated the time on task (TOT); the relationship between TOT and interruptions; and the proportion of time in work task categories. Length-biased sampling was controlled for. RESULTS: Doctors were interrupted 6.6 times/h. 11% of all tasks were interrupted, 3.3% more than once. Doctors multitasked for 12.8% of time. The mean TOT was 1:26 min. Interruptions were associated with a significant increase in TOT. However, when length-biased sampling was accounted for, interrupted tasks were unexpectedly completed in a shorter time than uninterrupted tasks. Doctors failed to return to 18.5% (95% CI 15.9% to 21.1%) of interrupted tasks. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that in busy interrupt-driven clinical environments, clinicians reduce the time they spend on clinical tasks if they experience interruptions, and may delay or fail to return to a significant portion of interrupted tasks. Task shortening may occur because interrupted tasks are truncated to 'catch up' for lost time, which may have significant implications for patient safety.
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
Cites
The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress
Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357072 · Cited by 728 · cited 1×
“Experimental studies provide some insights, but these reveal conflicting ideas about the effects of interruptions on performance.”
BackgroundChisholm, C. D., Collison, E. K., Nelson, D. R., & Cordell, W. H. (2000) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00469.x · Cited by 610
Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2005.12.009 · Cited by 600 · cited 1×
“Further, interruptions add significantly to cognitive load, increase stress and anxiety, inhibit decision-making performance and increase task errors.(11) 12 Interruptions can cause an individual to forget items in working memory, leading to errors such as failing to complete or initiate tasks, or to repeat tasks.”
BackgroundLaxmisan, A., Hakimzada, F., Sayan, O. R., Green, R. A., Zhang, J., & Patel, V. L. (2007) · International Journal of Medical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2006.09.019 · Cited by 449
Cited by
Allocation of Physician Time in Ambulatory Practice: A Time and Motion Study in 4 Specialties
Sinsky, C., Colligan, L., Li, L., Prgomet, M., Reynolds, S., Goeders, L., Westbrook, J., Tutty, M., & Blike, G. (2016) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-0961 · Cited by 1,494
Self-citationWallace, S., Clark, M., & White, J. (2012) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001099 · Cited by 432
Westbrook, J. I., Duffield, C., Li, L., & Creswick, N. J. (2011) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/1472-6963-11-319 · Cited by 376
Self-citationAlarm fatigue: impacts on patient safety
Ruskin, K. J., & Hueske-Kraus, D. (2015) · Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology · doi:10.1097/aco.0000000000000260 · Cited by 226
Weigl, M., Müller, A., Vincent, C., Angerer, P., & Sevdalis, N. (2012) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000188 · Cited by 190
Metadata
- Authors
- Westbrook, J. I., Coiera, E., Dunsmuir, W. T. M., Brown, B. M., Kelk, N., Paoloni, R., & Tran, C.
- Venue
- Quality and Safety in Health Care
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2010-05-12
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 284-289
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-3901
- OpenAlex
- W2138226178
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 47.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
