Emergency Department Workplace Interruptions Are Emergency Physicians “Interrupt‐driven” and “Multitasking”?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although interruptions have been shown in aviation and other work settings to result in error with serious and sometimes fatal consequences, little is known about interruptions in the emergency department (ED). The authors conducted an observational, time-motion task-analysis study to determine the number and types of interruptions in the ED. METHODS: Emergency physicians were observed in three EDs located in an urban teaching hospital, a suburban private teaching hospital, and a rural community hospital. A single investigator followed emergency staff physicians for 180-minute periods and recorded tasks, interruptions, and breaks-intask. An "interruption" was defined as any event that briefly required the attention of the subject but did not result in switching to a new task. A "break-intask" was defined as an event that required the attention of the physician for more than 10 seconds and subsequently resulted in changing tasks. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) total number of patients seen at all three sites during the 180-minute study period was 12.1 +/- 3.7 patients (range 5-20). Physicians performed a mean of 67.6 +/- 15.7 tasks per study period. The mean number of interruptions per 180-minute study period was 30.9 +/- 9.7 and the mean number of breaks-in-task was 20.7 +/- 6.3. Both the number of interruptions (r = 0.63; p < 0.001) and the number of breaks-in-task (r = 0.56; p < 0.001) per observation period were positively correlated with the average number of patients simultaneously managed. CONCLUSIONS: Emergency physicians are "interruptdriven." Emergency physicians are frequently interrupted and many interruptions result in breaks-in-task.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".