ArticleCJEM2025
A battle for attention: how do emergency physicians respond to interruptions? A scoping review.
Article in CJEM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesManaging constant interruptions is an intrinsic aspect of emergency medicine practice; however, effective physician responses to mitigate their impact remain unclear. Although interruptions are exceedingly common and closely linked to adverse patient outcomes, the approaches for managing such disruptions have yet to be established. In this study, we aimed to identify how emergency physicians and residents respond to interruptions and the factors influencing their responses.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to identify how emergency physicians and residents manage interruptions in the emergency department, searching the following databases using controlled vocabulary: Medline, APA PsycInfo, SCOPUS, and PubMed. Data extraction was conducted using the Covidence platform through a standardized and structured process.
resultsThe scoping review identified 18 relevant articles, the majority of which (12/18) employed observational methods, involving a total of 417 emergency physicians. These observations, amounting to 778.6 h, were conducted across 25 emergency departments in 4 countries. Physicians responded to interruptions through task switching, multitasking, deferral, acknowledgment, and rejection. Their responses were influenced by the nature of the interrupted activity, cognitive load management, use of telecommunications, physicians' perceptions, and the work environment.
conclusionEmergency departments are inherently fast-paced and prone to interruptions; therefore, it is important to better understand how emergency physicians and residents navigate these disruptions. This study explores how physicians respond to interruptions and provides insights to support clinicians in identifying and developing effective management strategies.
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.