Observational studyInquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
When Nurses in an Emergency Situation Look for a Medical Item But Fail to See It.
Observational study in Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing. 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.
- Real-time assessment of triage nurse situational awareness (SA) using the situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT).PloS one · 2025Observational
- Mechanism, contributing factors, and coping strategies of alarm fatigue in intensive care nursing: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emergency department nurses may fail to see medical items in emergency cart drawers, such as syringes and tubes, while handling emergency situations, which can often contribute to a delay in managing the case. This is a phenomenon known as Looked-but-failed-to-see (LBFTS) and occurs when the observer fails to detect a visible visual stimulus among various other stimuli. LBFTS is a group of human errors, including inattentional blindness (IB), satisfaction of search, and biased search processes, and is associated with constraints on human visual processing. LBFTS has been studied extensively in the fields of aviation, military, radiology, and road safety; however, the role of LBFTS in hospital ED has generally been overlooked. Hence, a key aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of the occurrence of LBFTS among ED nurses while searching for a particular medical item during a real-life emergency. An observational cross-sectional blinded study was conducted to determine the occurrence of LBFTS in a real-life visual search task during resuscitation cases in ED. The A-B-C (antecedent-behavior-consequence) observation and recording naturalistic observation technique was used. A total of 45 ED nurses who were assigned to either the crash cart or the intubation trolley at the time of data collection agreed to participate and were included in the analysis. The results revealed that LBFTS accounted for 66% of the cases where emergency items were brought from another location. Participants missed seeing an item, although the item was directly in front of their eyes. Factors such as the perception of cognitive workload at the time of data collection positively impacted the increase in LBFTS
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.