ArticleClinical imaging2024
Workflow interruptions in an era of instant messaging: A detailed analysis.
Article in Clinical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Maintaining the balance: wellbeing strategies for abdominal radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Decoding collaboration obstacles: a survey on reporting preferences between neuroradiologists and clinical specialists.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
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
Abstract
introductionThe complex practice environment and responsibilities incumbent on diagnostic radiologists creates a workflow susceptible to disruption. While interruptions have been shown to contribute to medical errors in the healthcare delivery environment, the exact impact on highly subspecialized services such as diagnostic radiology is less certain. One potential source of workflow disruption is the use of a departmental instant messaging system (Webex), to facilitate communications between radiology faculty, residents, fellows, and technologists. A retrospective review was conducted to quantify the frequency of interruption experienced by our neuroradiology fellows. MATERIALS AND
methodsData logs were gathered comprising all instant messages sent and received within the designated group chats from July 5-December 31, 2021, during weekday shifts staffed by neuroradiology fellows. Interruptions per shift were calculated based on month, week, and day of the week.
results14,424 messages were sent across 289 total shifts. The 6 fellows assigned to the main neuroradiology reading room sent 3258 messages and received 10,260 messages from technologists and other staff. There was an average of 50 interruptions per shift when examined by month (range 48-53), and 52 interruptions per shift when examined by day of the week (range 40-60).
conclusionNeuroradiology fellows experience frequent interruptions from the departmental instant messaging system. These disruptions, when considered in conjunction with other non-interpretative tasks, may have negative implications for workflow efficiency, requiring iterative process improvements when incorporating new technology into the practice environment of diagnostic radiology.
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.