Interruptions in Emergency Medicine: Things Are Not Always What They Seem

Substitution, delegation or addition? Implications of workforce skill mix on efficiency and interruptions in computed tomography

Objectives This study evaluated multiple computed tomography (CT) workforce models to identify any implications on efficiency (length of stay, scan frequency and workforce cost) and scanning radiographer interruptions through substituting or supplementing with a trained CT assistant. Methods The study was conducted in a CT unit of a tertiary Queensland hospital and prospectively compared four workforce models, including usual practice: Model 1 used an administrative assistant (AA) and one radiographer; Model 2 substituted a medical imaging assistant (MIA) for the AA; Model 3 was usual practice, consisting of two radiographers; and Model 4 included two radiographers, with a supplemented MIA. Observational data were collected over 7 days per model and were cross-checked against electronic records. Data for interruption type and frequency, as well as scan type and duration, were collected. Annual workforce costs were calculated as measures of efficiency. Results Similar scan frequency and parameters (complexity) occurred across all models, averaging 164 scans (interquartile range 160-172 scans) each. The median times from patient arrival to examination completion in Models 1-4 were 47, 35, 46 and 33min respectively. There were between 34 and 104 interruptions per day across all models, with the 'assistant role' fielding the largest proportion. Model 4 demonstrated the highest workforce cost, and Model 2 the lowest. Conclusion This study demonstrated that assistant models offer similar patient throughput to usual practice at a reduced cost. Model 2 was the most efficient of all two-staff models (Models 1-3), offering the cheapest workforce, slightly higher throughput and faster examination times. Not surprisingly, the additional staff model (Model 4) offered greater overall examination times and throughput, with fewer interruptions, although workforce cost and possible role ambiguity were both limitations of this model. These findings may assist decision makers in selecting the optimal workforce design for their own individual contexts. What is known about the topic? Innovative solutions are required to address ongoing health workforce sustainability concerns. Workforce substitution models using trained assistants have demonstrated numerous benefits internationally, with translation to the Australian allied health setting showing promise. What does this paper add? Building on existing research, this study provides clinical workforce alternatives that maintain patient throughput while offering cost efficiencies. This study also quantified the many daily interruptions that occur within the CT setting, highlighting a potential clinical risk. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to empirically test the use of allied health assistants within CT. What are the implications for practitioners? Role substitution in CT may offer solutions to skills shortages, increasing expenditure and service demand. Incorporating appropriate assistant workforce models can maintain throughput while demonstrating implications for efficiency and interruptions, potentially affecting staff stress and burnout. In addition, the assistant's scope and accepted level of interruptions should be considerations when choosing the most appropriate model.

Physicians' and nurses' work time allocation and workflow interruptions in emergency departments: a comparative time-motion study across two countries

BACKGROUND

Globally, emergency department (ED) work is fast-paced and subject to interruptions, placing high coordination and communication demands on staff. Our study aimed to compare ED staffs' work time allocation and interruption rates across professional roles and two national settings.

METHODS

We conducted a time-motion study with standardised expert observations of ED physicians and nurses in Germany and the USA. Observers coded ED staffs' activities and workflow interruptions. General and generalised linear models were used to examine differences in activities and interruption rates between countries and ED professions.

RESULTS

28 observations were conducted in the USA and 30 in Germany. Overall, the largest portion of time spent by ED staff in both settings was in documentation (22.0%). Physicians spent more time in verbal interaction with patients (9.9% vs 5.2% in nurses; p=0.006), in documentation (29.4% vs 15.6%; p<0.001) and other professional activities (13.0% vs 4.8%; p=0.002). Nurses allocated significantly more time to therapeutic (22.3% vs 6.0% in physicians; p<0.001) and organisational activities (20.4% vs 9.5%; p<0.001). Overall mean interruption rate per hour was 10.16 (US ED: 8.15, German ED: 12.04; p<0.001). American physicians and German nurses were most often disrupted by colleagues of the same profession (country: B=-.27, p=0.027; profession: B=0.35, p=0.006). German ED staff were interrupted more often by patients (B=-.78, p=0.001) and other sources (B=-.76, p<0.001) than American ED staff.

DISCUSSION

Our findings corroborate that professional roles largely determine time allocation to specific activities. However, interruption rates indicate differences between countries, suggesting the need for context-specific solutions to work stressors.

Interruptions in Health Care: Assessing Their Connection With Error and Patient Harm

OBJECTIVE

We address the problem of how researchers investigate the actual or potential causal connection between interruptions and medical errors, and whether interventions might reduce the potential for harm.

BACKGROUND

It is widely assumed that interruptions lead to errors and patient harm. However, many reviewers and authors have commented that there is not strong evidence for a causal connection.

METHOD

We introduce a framework of criteria for assessing how strongly evidence implies causality: the so-called Bradford Hill criteria. We then examine four key "metanarratives" of research into interruptions in health care-applied cognitive psychology, epidemiology, quality improvement, and cognitive systems engineering-and assess how each tradition has addressed the causal connection between interruptions and error.

RESULTS

Outcomes of applying the Bradford Hill criteria are that the applied cognitive psychology and epidemiology metanarratives address the causal connection relatively directly, whereas the quality improvement metanarrative merely assumes causality, and the cognitive systems engineering metanarrative either implicitly or explicitly questions the feasibility of finding a direct causal connection with harm.

CONCLUSION

The Bradford Hill criteria are useful for evaluating the existing literature on the relationship between interruptions in health care, clinical errors, and the potential for patient harm. In the future, more attention is needed to the issue of why interruptions usually do not lead to harm, and the implications for how we approach patient safety.