• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Obstacles to research on the effects of interruptions in healthcare

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    GrundgeigerPUB2821.pdf (167.9Kb)
    File version
    Accepted Manuscript (AM)
    Author(s)
    Grundgeiger, Tobias
    Dekker, Sidney
    Sanderson, Penelope
    Brecknell, Birgit
    Liu, David
    Aitken, Leanne M
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Dekker, Sidney
    Year published
    2016
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The authors of The Institute of Medicine report ‘To Err is Human’ concluded that interruptions can contribute to medical errors.1 Given this risk, healthcare researchers have generally, and often solely, viewed interruptions as obstacles to work—as factors that thwart progress, create stress, increase workload, interfere with memory for current and future tasks2 ,3 and harm efficiency, productivity and safety.4 For example, researchers reported a positive association between interruptions and errors.5 A contrasting view is to see interruptions as promoting safety and high-quality patient care. From this view, interruptions ...
    View more >
    The authors of The Institute of Medicine report ‘To Err is Human’ concluded that interruptions can contribute to medical errors.1 Given this risk, healthcare researchers have generally, and often solely, viewed interruptions as obstacles to work—as factors that thwart progress, create stress, increase workload, interfere with memory for current and future tasks2 ,3 and harm efficiency, productivity and safety.4 For example, researchers reported a positive association between interruptions and errors.5 A contrasting view is to see interruptions as promoting safety and high-quality patient care. From this view, interruptions function as interventions,6–8 such as a call to cease or change work if the interruptee is potentially committing an error.9 Other industries encourage interruptions for that reason. Many researchers investigating interruptions in healthcare cite the sterile cockpit principle10 as a rationale for reducing interruptions—but it is less often noted that copilots are trained to speak up with safety concerns even if it means interrupting a senior pilot's work.11 These different views on studying interruptions have made it difficult to draw conclusions from the research. Granted, diverse perspectives and methods can generate a greater variety of ideas and solutions than single perspectives and methods.12 However, such diversity also makes it more difficult to compile and compare research results or identify critical research questions. The present paper draws attention to three obstacles to research on the effects of interruptions that arise from differing views and methods: definitions, processes and data collection. We discuss possible solutions that may lead us to a better understanding of the effects of interruptions and to a multidisciplinary view on the effects of interruptions in healthcare.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    BMJ Quality & Safety
    Volume
    25
    Issue
    6
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004083
    Copyright Statement
    © The Author(s) 2016. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. It is posted here with permission of the copyright owner(s) for your personal use only. No further distribution permitted. For information about this journal please refer to the publisher’s website or contact the author(s).
    Subject
    Clinical sciences
    Health services and systems
    Public health
    Curriculum and pedagogy
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/100974
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander