MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Work Pressure and Patient Flow Management in the Emergency Department: Findings From an Ethnographic Study

2011· article· en· W2157909664 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for International Governance Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentMedicineDocumentationMedical emergencyRedressEmergency medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: In this hypothesis-generating study, we observe, identify, and analyze how emergency clinicians seek to manage work pressure to maximize patient flow in an environment characterized by delayed patient admissions (access block) and emergency department (ED) crowding. METHODS: An ethnographic approach was used, which involved direct observation of on-the-ground behaviors, when and where they happened. More than 1,600 hours over a 12-month period were spent observing approximately 4,500 interactions across approximately 260 emergency physicians and nurses, emergency clinicians, and clinicians from other hospital departments. The authors content analyzed and thematically analyzed more than 800 pages of field notes to identify indicators of and responses to pressure in the day-to-day ED work environment. RESULTS: In response to the inability to control inflow, and the reactions of inpatient departments to whom patients might be transferred, emergency clinicians: reconciled urgency and acuity of conditions; negotiated and determined patients' admission-discharge status early in their trajectories; pursued predetermined but coevolving pathways in response to micro- and macroflow problems; and exercised flexibility to reduce work pressure by managing scarce time and space in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: To redress the linearity of most literature on patient flow, this study adopts a systems perspective and ethnographic methods to bring to light the dynamic role that individuals play, interacting with their work contexts, to maintain patient flow. The study provides an empirical foundation, uniquely discernible through qualitative research, about aspects of ED work that previously have been the subject only of discussion or commentary articles. This study provides empirical documentation of the moment-to-moment responses of emergency clinicians to work pressure brought about by factors outside much of their control, establishing the relationship between patient flow and work pressure. We conceptualize the ED as a dynamic system, combining socioprofessional influences to reduce and control work pressure in the ED. Interventions in education, practice, policy, and organizational performance evaluations will be supported by this systematic documentation of the complexity of emergency clinical work. Future research involves testing the five findings using systems dynamic modeling techniques.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it