Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work: a summary of the evidence

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

Abstract

The study of interruptions and multitasking as central elements of clinical workflow has increasingly featured as a topic of investigation within the healthcare sector due to their perceived implications for the efficient and safe delivery of care. The body of research in this area is large and growing, covering a wide range of settings and healthcare professionals. Drawing on findings from the fields of experimental psychology and aviation, the assumption that interruptions and multitasking may negatively impact clinical work has dominated research of these phenomena in healthcare.

Evidence of the effects of interruptions and multitasking is neither consistent nor conclusive, however, due in part to the complexity of workflow in healthcare and the corresponding challenges to studying it (Walter, Acad Emerg Med 25(10):1178–1180, 2018; Walter et al., Int J Hum Comput Stud 79:118–125, 2015). A predominance of descriptive studies (Kannampallil et al., J Biomed Inform 64:342–351, 2016) has quantified aspects of clinical work in a range of settings, including quantifying the pervasiveness of interruptions and multitasking. However, these studies were generally not designed to assess the impacts of these phenomena. A smaller group of studies has assessed various effects of multitasking and, more commonly, interruptions. These studies have reported a rather heterogeneous range of results.

This chapter provides an overview of the current evidence about the role of interruptions and multitasking in healthcare and their impact on workflow and outcomes.
LanguageEnglish
Title of host publicationCognitive informatics
Subtitle of host publicationreengineering clinical workflow for safer and more efficient care
EditorsKai Zheng, Johanna Westbrook, Thomas G. Kannampallil, Vimla L. Patel
Place of PublicationSwitzerland
PublisherSpringer
Chapter7
Pages103-114
Number of pages12
ISBN (Electronic)9783030169169
ISBN (Print)9783030169152
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Fingerprint

Workflow
Delivery of Health Care
Experimental Psychology
Aviation
Health Care Sector
Research

Keywords

  • interruptions
  • multitasking
  • workflow
  • communication
  • patient safety
  • cognitive load
  • nurses
  • doctors
  • information technology
  • error

Cite this

Westbrook, J. I., Raban, M. Z., & Walter, S. R. (2019). Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work: a summary of the evidence. In K. Zheng, J. Westbrook, T. G. Kannampallil, & V. L. Patel (Eds.), Cognitive informatics: reengineering clinical workflow for safer and more efficient care (pp. 103-114). Switzerland: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_7
Westbrook, Johanna I. ; Raban, Magdalena Z. ; Walter, Scott R. / Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work : a summary of the evidence. Cognitive informatics: reengineering clinical workflow for safer and more efficient care. editor / Kai Zheng ; Johanna Westbrook ; Thomas G. Kannampallil ; Vimla L. Patel. Switzerland : Springer, 2019. pp. 103-114
@inbook{96ea8854168244cab41a30fda0e516bb,
title = "Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work: a summary of the evidence",
abstract = "The study of interruptions and multitasking as central elements of clinical workflow has increasingly featured as a topic of investigation within the healthcare sector due to their perceived implications for the efficient and safe delivery of care. The body of research in this area is large and growing, covering a wide range of settings and healthcare professionals. Drawing on findings from the fields of experimental psychology and aviation, the assumption that interruptions and multitasking may negatively impact clinical work has dominated research of these phenomena in healthcare.Evidence of the effects of interruptions and multitasking is neither consistent nor conclusive, however, due in part to the complexity of workflow in healthcare and the corresponding challenges to studying it (Walter, Acad Emerg Med 25(10):1178–1180, 2018; Walter et al., Int J Hum Comput Stud 79:118–125, 2015). A predominance of descriptive studies (Kannampallil et al., J Biomed Inform 64:342–351, 2016) has quantified aspects of clinical work in a range of settings, including quantifying the pervasiveness of interruptions and multitasking. However, these studies were generally not designed to assess the impacts of these phenomena. A smaller group of studies has assessed various effects of multitasking and, more commonly, interruptions. These studies have reported a rather heterogeneous range of results.This chapter provides an overview of the current evidence about the role of interruptions and multitasking in healthcare and their impact on workflow and outcomes.",
keywords = "interruptions, multitasking, workflow, communication, patient safety, cognitive load, nurses, doctors, information technology, error",
author = "Westbrook, {Johanna I.} and Raban, {Magdalena Z.} and Walter, {Scott R.}",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_7",
language = "English",
isbn = "9783030169152",
pages = "103--114",
editor = "Kai Zheng and Johanna Westbrook and Kannampallil, {Thomas G.} and Patel, {Vimla L.}",
booktitle = "Cognitive informatics",
publisher = "Springer",

}

Westbrook, JI, Raban, MZ & Walter, SR 2019, Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work: a summary of the evidence. in K Zheng, J Westbrook, TG Kannampallil & VL Patel (eds), Cognitive informatics: reengineering clinical workflow for safer and more efficient care. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 103-114. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_7

Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work : a summary of the evidence. / Westbrook, Johanna I.; Raban, Magdalena Z.; Walter, Scott R.

Cognitive informatics: reengineering clinical workflow for safer and more efficient care. ed. / Kai Zheng; Johanna Westbrook; Thomas G. Kannampallil; Vimla L. Patel. Switzerland : Springer, 2019. p. 103-114.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapterResearchpeer-review

TY - CHAP

T1 - Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work

T2 - a summary of the evidence

AU - Westbrook, Johanna I.

AU - Raban, Magdalena Z.

AU - Walter, Scott R.

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - The study of interruptions and multitasking as central elements of clinical workflow has increasingly featured as a topic of investigation within the healthcare sector due to their perceived implications for the efficient and safe delivery of care. The body of research in this area is large and growing, covering a wide range of settings and healthcare professionals. Drawing on findings from the fields of experimental psychology and aviation, the assumption that interruptions and multitasking may negatively impact clinical work has dominated research of these phenomena in healthcare.Evidence of the effects of interruptions and multitasking is neither consistent nor conclusive, however, due in part to the complexity of workflow in healthcare and the corresponding challenges to studying it (Walter, Acad Emerg Med 25(10):1178–1180, 2018; Walter et al., Int J Hum Comput Stud 79:118–125, 2015). A predominance of descriptive studies (Kannampallil et al., J Biomed Inform 64:342–351, 2016) has quantified aspects of clinical work in a range of settings, including quantifying the pervasiveness of interruptions and multitasking. However, these studies were generally not designed to assess the impacts of these phenomena. A smaller group of studies has assessed various effects of multitasking and, more commonly, interruptions. These studies have reported a rather heterogeneous range of results.This chapter provides an overview of the current evidence about the role of interruptions and multitasking in healthcare and their impact on workflow and outcomes.

AB - The study of interruptions and multitasking as central elements of clinical workflow has increasingly featured as a topic of investigation within the healthcare sector due to their perceived implications for the efficient and safe delivery of care. The body of research in this area is large and growing, covering a wide range of settings and healthcare professionals. Drawing on findings from the fields of experimental psychology and aviation, the assumption that interruptions and multitasking may negatively impact clinical work has dominated research of these phenomena in healthcare.Evidence of the effects of interruptions and multitasking is neither consistent nor conclusive, however, due in part to the complexity of workflow in healthcare and the corresponding challenges to studying it (Walter, Acad Emerg Med 25(10):1178–1180, 2018; Walter et al., Int J Hum Comput Stud 79:118–125, 2015). A predominance of descriptive studies (Kannampallil et al., J Biomed Inform 64:342–351, 2016) has quantified aspects of clinical work in a range of settings, including quantifying the pervasiveness of interruptions and multitasking. However, these studies were generally not designed to assess the impacts of these phenomena. A smaller group of studies has assessed various effects of multitasking and, more commonly, interruptions. These studies have reported a rather heterogeneous range of results.This chapter provides an overview of the current evidence about the role of interruptions and multitasking in healthcare and their impact on workflow and outcomes.

KW - interruptions

KW - multitasking

KW - workflow

KW - communication

KW - patient safety

KW - cognitive load

KW - nurses

KW - doctors

KW - information technology

KW - error

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_7

DO - 10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_7

M3 - Chapter

SN - 9783030169152

SP - 103

EP - 114

BT - Cognitive informatics

A2 - Zheng, Kai

A2 - Westbrook, Johanna

A2 - Kannampallil, Thomas G.

A2 - Patel, Vimla L.

PB - Springer

CY - Switzerland

ER -

Westbrook JI, Raban MZ, Walter SR. Interruptions and multitasking in clinical work: a summary of the evidence. In Zheng K, Westbrook J, Kannampallil TG, Patel VL, editors, Cognitive informatics: reengineering clinical workflow for safer and more efficient care. Switzerland: Springer. 2019. p. 103-114 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16916-9_7