MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405237738 · doi:10.2196/60176

Work Systems Analysis of Emergency Nurse Patient Flow Management Using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety Model: Applying Findings From a Grounded Theory Study

2024· article· en· W4405237738 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ellen Benjamin, Karen K. Giuliano

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmergency and Acute Care Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUsabilityGrounded theoryPatient safetyEmergency nursingEmergency departmentNursingTeamworkWork (physics)Work systemsHealth careEmergency managementMedicineMedical emergencyKnowledge managementQualitative researchComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Emergency nurses actively manage the flow of patients through emergency departments. Patient flow management is complex, cognitively demanding work that shapes the timeliness, efficiency, and safety of patient care. Research exploring nursing patient flow management is limited. A comprehensive analysis of emergency nursing work systems is needed to improve patient flow work processes. Objective: The aim of this paper is to describe the work system factors that impact emergency nurse patient flow management using the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. Methods: This study used grounded theory methodologies. Data were collected through multiple rounds of focus groups and interviews with 27 emergency nurse participants and 64 hours of participant observation across 4 emergency departments between August 2022 and February 2023. Data were analyzed using coding, constant comparative analysis, and memo-writing. Emergent themes were organized according to the first component of the System Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model, the work system. Results: Patient flow management is impacted by diverse factors, including personal nursing characteristics; tools and technology; external factors; and the emergency department's physical and socio-organizational environment. Participants raised concerns about the available technology's functionality, usability, and accessibility; departmental capacity and layout; resource levels across the health care system; and interdepartmental teamwork. Other noteworthy findings include obscurity and variability across departments' staff roles titles, functions, and norms; the degree of provider involvement in patient flow management decisions; and management's enforcement of timing metrics. Conclusions: There are significant barriers to the work of emergency patient flow management. More research is needed to measure the impact of these human factors on patient flow outcomes. Collaboration between health care administrators, human factors engineers, and nurses is needed to improve emergency nurse work systems.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicEmergency and Acute Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207