4.5 Review

Interruptions in the wild: Development of a sociotechnical systems model of interruptions in the emergency department through a systematic review

Journal

APPLIED ERGONOMICS
Volume 51, Issue -, Pages 244-254

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2015.05.010

Keywords

Interruptions; Emergency medicine; Sociotechnical systems

Funding

  1. National Patient Safety Foundation
  2. Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing Center for Innovative Care in Aging
  3. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [1K08HS022916]
  4. National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) [K01AG044439]
  5. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS/NIH) through the Vanderbilt CTSA [UL1 TR000445, KL2 TR000446]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Interruptions are unavoidable in the interrupt driven Emergency Department (ED). A critical review and synthesis of the literature on interruptions in the ED can offer insight into the nature of interruptions in complex real-world environments. Fifteen empirical articles on interruptions in the ED were identified through database searches. Articles were reviewed, critiqued, and synthesized. There was little agreement and several gaps in conceptualizing sociotechnical system factors, process characteristics, and interruption outcomes. While multiple outcomes of interruptions were mentioned, few were measured, and the relationship between multiple outcomes was rarely assessed. Synthesizing the literature and drawing on ergonomic concepts, we present a sociotechnical model of interruptions in complex settings that motivates new directions in research and design. The model conceptualizes interruptions as a process, not a single event, that occurs within and is shaped by an interacting socio-technical system and that results in a variety of interrelated outcomes. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd and The Ergonomics Society. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available