CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Information Systems Theories and ImplementationTeam Dynamics and PerformanceUsability and User Interface Design

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Work coordination, workflow, and workarounds in a medical context

Kobayashi, Marina, Fussell, Susan R., Xiao, Yan, Seagull, F. Jacob·2005·CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
DOI 10.1145/1056808.1056966
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper we report an ethnographic study of workarounds-informal temporary practices for handling exceptions to normal workflow-in a hospital environment. Workarounds are a common technique for dealing with the inherent uncertainty of dynamic work environments. Workarounds can help coordinate work, especially under conditions of high time pressure, but they may result in information or work protocols that are unstable, unavailable, or unreliable. We investigated workarounds and their effects through observation and interviews in a major teaching medical center. Our results suggest 4 key features of workarounds that technologies might help address: (a) workarounds differ as a function of people's role; (b) workarounds draw on tacit knowledge of others' abilities and willingness to help; (c) workarounds can have a cascading effect, causing other workarounds down the line; (d) workarounds often rely on principles of fairness and who owes whom a favor. We provide recommendations for designing systems to better support workarounds in dynamic environments.

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 · 10.1145/1056808.1056966

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

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?

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

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Nemeth , C. ( 2003 ). The Master Schedule: How cognitive artifacts affect distributed cognition in acute care. Unpublished doctoral dissertation . Nemeth, C. (2003). The Master Schedule: How cognitive artifacts affect distributed cognition in acute care. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
  2. Xiao , Y. , Seagull , F.J. , Faraj , S. , & Mackenzie , C.F. ( 2003 ). Coordination Practices for Patient Safety: Knowledge, Cultural, and Supporting Artifact Requirements. Proc . of International Ergonomic Association 2003 (Macroergonomics in Healthcare : Session) . Xiao, Y., Seagull, F.J., Faraj, S., & Mackenzie, C.F. (2003). Coordination Practices for Patient Safety: Knowledge, Cultural, and Supporting Artifact Requirements. Proc. of International Ergonomic Association 2003 (Macroergonomics in Healthcare: Session).
  3. Xiao , Y. , Seagull , F.J. , Hu , P. , Mackenzie , C.F. , de Visser , J. , & Wieringa , P. ( 2003 ). Distributed Monitoring In a Dynamic Environment: Trade-offs of Information Access and Privacy . Proc. of 2003 IEEE International. Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics , pp. 1772 -- 1777 . Xiao, Y., Seagull, F.J., Hu, P., Mackenzie, C.F., de Visser, J., & Wieringa, P. (2003). Distributed Monitoring In a Dynamic Environment: Trade-offs of Information Access and Privacy. Proc. of 2003 IEEE International. Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp.1772--1777.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kobayashi, M., Fussell, S. R., Xiao, Y., & Seagull, F. J.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Maryland, Baltimore (US)
ORCID
Venue
CHI '05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2005-04-02
Pages
1561-1564
DOI
10.1145/1056808.1056966
OpenAlex
W2119704473
Cited by
141
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Locations
CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
Keywords
workarounds, informal work practices, hospital workflow, work coordination, tacit knowledge, time pressure, role differences, medical work

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