Communication loads on clinical staff in the emergency department

To the Editor: I was interested in the report by Coiera et al1 about communication in the emergency department and the accompanying editorial by Vincent and Wears2 (from the United Kingdom and the United States, respectively, where, incidentally, the practice of emergency medicine differs significantly from that in Australia). In no other discipline is facility in communication between doctors, nurses, patients and relatives, as well as colleagues in other departments, of greater importance, given the paucity of information at presentation and the time constraints for assessment, management and appropriate referral — all within a time frame of a few minutes to several hours, depending on the severity of the presenting complaint. Vincent and Wears allude to the "fluidity and complexity of the clinical environment" and rightly suggest that studies need to be designed to embrace a "need to appreciate clinicians' decision making and cognitive load".

It was therefore disappointing that, after so much effort, Coiera et al did not correlate their data with severity of clinical condition and/or outcome (eg, requiring resuscitation, assessment for possible admission, treatment solely in the emergency department, or discharge to outpatients clinic or home, to name but a few possible groupings). These may, of course, be intended for future publication.

Regrettably, it is not stated how much input, if any, in the design and conduct of the study was obtained from staff in the unidentified emergency departments, and their contribution goes largely unacknowledged. As Richardson3 has pointed out, the active participation of at least one member of the emergency medicine staff (preferably senior and experienced) in such studies enhances motivation in staff busy with other priorities, and facilitates cooperation and collaboration (which can thereafter properly be recognised in co-authorship).

There is also a danger that in the current litigious climate an inadvertent emphasis on "errors and poor outcomes" may prejudice the real benefits of the worthwhile objective of assessing the nature, relevance and value of improved communication between those engaged in clinical practice. Nonetheless, it is encouraging to deduce from this report that, in emergency departments, doctors and nurses regularly speak to each other, presumably with an optimal outcome for the patient in mind.

For one who spent two decades as head of a busy, metropolitan emergency department, it is reassuring to find, in a discussion of informatics, advocacy2 for a return to the "white board", which, even today, remains the mainstay of patient information and tracking in many emergency departments.