Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21527407›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA

Using the time and motion method to study clinical work processes and workflow: methodological inconsistencies and a call for standardized research.

Kai Zheng, Michael H Guo, David A Hanauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 96 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
96citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

96 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. A systematic review of the impact of health information technology on nurses' time.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

36 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kai ZhengSchool of Public Health, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2029, USA. kzheng@umich.edu
Michael H Guo
David A Hanauer

Funding

MICHIGAN INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL AND HEALTH RESEARCH (MICHR) (UL1): (BPCA)UL1RR024986 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SHANLEY, THOMAS P. · 2007 to 2011
$51.2M
NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR024986NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR024986
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify ways for improving the consistency of design, conduct, and results reporting of time and motion (T&M) research in health informatics. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe analyzed the commonalities and divergences of empirical studies published 1990-2010 that have applied the T&M approach to examine the impact of health IT implementation on clinical work processes and workflow. The analysis led to the development of a suggested 'checklist' intended to help future T&M research produce compatible and comparable results. We call this checklist STAMP (Suggested Time And Motion Procedures).

resultsSTAMP outlines a minimum set of 29 data/ information elements organized into eight key areas, plus three supplemental elements contained in an 'Ancillary Data' area, that researchers may consider collecting and reporting in their future T&M endeavors. DISCUSSION: T&M is generally regarded as the most reliable approach for assessing the impact of health IT implementation on clinical work. However, there exist considerable inconsistencies in how previous T&M studies were conducted and/or how their results were reported, many of which do not seem necessary yet can have a significant impact on quality of research and generalisability of results. Therefore, we deem it is time to call for standards that can help improve the consistency of T&M research in health informatics. This study represents an initial attempt.

conclusionWe developed a suggested checklist to improve the methodological and results reporting consistency of T&M research, so that meaningful insights can be derived from across-study synthesis and health informatics, as a field, will be able to accumulate knowledge from these studies.

Indexed as

ChecklistMedical InformaticsTime and Motion StudiesWorkflowData CollectionHealth Plan ImplementationHumansReference Standards

Identifiers

PMID21527407
PMCPMC3168304

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.