Objective: To measure communication loads on clinical staff in an acute clinical setting, and to describe the pattern of informal and formal communication events.
Design: Observational study.
Setting: Two emergency departments, one rural and one urban, in New South Wales hospitals, between June and July 1999.
Participants: Twelve clinical staff members, comprising six nurses and six doctors.
Main outcome measures: Time involved in communication; number of communication events, interruptions, and overlapping communications; choice of communication channel; purpose of communication.
Results: 35 hours and 13 minutes were observed, and 1286 distinct communication events were identified, representing 36.5 events per person per hour (95% CI, 34.5–38.5). A third of communication events (30.6%) were classified as interruptions, giving a rate of 11.15 interruptions per hour for all subjects; 10% of communication time involved two or more concurrent conversations; and 12.7% of all events involved formal information sources such as patients' medical records. Face-to-face conversation accounted for 82%. While medical staff asked for information slightly less frequently than nursing staff (25.4% v 30.9%), they received information much less frequently (6.6% v 16.2%).
Conclusion: Our results support the need for communication training in emergency departments and other similar workplaces. The combination of interruptions and multiple concurrent tasks may produce clinical errors by disrupting memory processes. About 90% of the information transactions observed involved interpersonal exchanges rather than interaction with formal information sources. This may put a low upper limit on the potential for improving information processes by introducing electronic medical records.
- 1. Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council. The final report of the Taskforce on Quality in Australian Health Care. Canberra: Australian Health Ministers' Advisory Council, 1996.
- 2. Bhasale AL, Miller GC, Reid SE. Analysing potential harm in Australian general practice: an incident-monitoring study. Med J Aust 1998; 169: 73-76.
- 3. Donchin Y, Gopher D, Olin M, et al A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1995; 23: 294-300.
- 4. Gosbee J. Communication among health professionals. BMJ 1998; 316: 642.
- 5. Coiera E. Clinical communication: A new informatics paradigm. Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association, Washington DC, Autumn Symposium 1996; J Am Med Informatics Assoc Symposium Supplement 1996; 17-21.
- 6. Coiera E, Tombs V. Communication behaviours in a hospital setting: an observational study. BMJ 1998; 316: 673-676.
- 7. Parker J, Coiera E. Improving clinical communication: A view from psychology. J Am Med Informatics Assoc 2000; 7: 453-461.
- 8. Chisholm C, Collison K, Nelson D, Cordell W. Emergency department workplace interruptions. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7: 1239-1243.
- 9. Reason J. Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
- 10. Williams KA, Rose WD, Simon R. Teamwork in Emergency Medical Services. Air Med J 1999; 18: 149-153.
- 11. Safran C, Sands DZ, Rind DM. Online medical records: a decade of experience. In: Moorman PW, van der Lei J, Musen MA, editors. Proceedings of EPRiMP: The International Working Conference on Electronic Patient Records in Medical Practice. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: IMIA, 1998: 128-132.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.