ArticleArchives of academic emergency medicine2026
The Primary Sources of Interruptions Experienced by Physicians and Nurses in Emergency Departments: A Scoping Review.
Article in Archives of academic emergency medicine, 2026. 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.
- Virtual reality simulation with eye-tracking feedback versus mannequin-based training for situational awareness in trauma management under simulated emergency department interruptions in Iran: a pilot randomized controlled trial.Journal of educational evaluation for health professions · 2026Trial
- Eye-Tracking Analysis of Attention Disruptions Under Realistic Interruptions During Trauma Management; A Cross-sectional Study in a Simulated Virtual Reality.Archives of academic emergency medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Interruptions are common in emergency departments (ED) and frequently occur during critical clinical tasks. These interruptions disrupt workflow, reduce situational awareness, increase the risk of errors, and may compromise patient safety. Identifying and mapping their sources is therefore essential to guide targeted strategies and improve the quality of care. This scoping review aimed to identify and categorize the primary sources of work-related interruptions among physicians and nurses in the ED. Methods: The review question, developed using the PCC framework (physicians and nurses; work-related interruptions; EDs), sought to identify the primary sources of interruptions in ED settings. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar to locate peer-reviewed studies published up to September 2025. Two reviewers independently screened the studies and extracted the data. Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. Reported interruption rates varied across settings and professional roles. The primary sources of interruptions were grouped into six major categories: colleague interference, phone and pager alerts, patient-initiated interruptions, family or companion interference, technical failures and lack of resources, and environmental noise. Most interruptions occurred at nursing or physician workstations and during medication preparation, documentation, or direct patient care. Conclusion: This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the main sources of interruptions in ED. Understanding where and why these interruptions occur can guide the development of targeted educational, organizational, and environmental interventions. Reducing avoidable interruptions may enhance staff performance, improve patient safety, and optimize the quality of emergency care.
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.