ArticleBMJ open quality2022
Impact of workflow interruptions on baseline activities of the doctors working in the emergency department.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in Communication after Transition from Paging to Collaborative Text Messaging.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- The Primary Sources of Interruptions Experienced by Physicians and Nurses in Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators for Medication Safety in Emergency Care Using a SEIPS Model: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Using Video Ethnography and Stimulated Recall Interviews to Describe the Diagnostic Process in the Emergency Department.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
- A battle for attention: how do emergency physicians respond to interruptions? A scoping review.CJEM · 2025Article
- Implementation of geriatric screening in the emergency department using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorkflow interruptions are common in the emergency department (ED) of the hospitals for physicians, leading to an increased risk of errors. PURPOSE: This study aims to understand the baseline activities of the ED doctors and how these are affected by workflow interruptions.
methodsThe study was conducted in two phases to collect the doctor's perspective (through questionnaire survey) and observer's perspective (through workflow observation study) about ED doctors' baseline activities and workflow interruptions. Two different perspectives were obtained to make the insights clearer and more valuable. The point of view of the 223 doctors working in ED of the hospitals was recorded through a questionnaire survey. In the second phase, the observer's point of view (authors) was obtained through a workflow observation study, and 13 doctors were observed for 160 hours.
resultsDirect communication with patients (37.1%) and 'documentation and prescription' (22.7%) were found to be the most frequent activities. The most common interruptions were visual and auditory distractions, rumination (mind-wandering) and intrusion (by co-workers). Also, the time consumed on indirect patient care (6.6%) was higher than direct patient care (4. 2%). Interruptions increase the chances of errors by making it hard for a doctor to resume a primary task after facing interruptions.
conclusionInterruptions increase the chances of errors and make it difficult for the doctors to resume primary tasks (after facing such incidents).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.