Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 50, Issue 4 , Pages 407-413, October 2007

Communication Patterns in a UK Emergency Department

Presented at the Presentation of Results Day: Ethnographic Research, NPSA, September 2005, London, England.

  • Maria Woloshynowych, PhD, BSc

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Safety Research Unit, Department of Bio-Surgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College, London, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress for correspondence: Maria Woloshynowych, PhD, BSc, Clinical Safety Research Unit, Department of Bio-Surgery & Surgical Technology, Imperial College, St. Mary’s Hospital, Praed Street, London, W2 1NY, UK; 44-20-7886-6428, fax 44-20-7886-6950
  • ,
  • Rachel Davis, MSc, BSc

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Safety Research Unit, Department of Bio-Surgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College, London, UK
  • ,
  • Ruth Brown, MB, BS

      Affiliations

    • Department of Emergency Medicine, St. Mary’s Hospital, London, UK.
  • ,
  • Charles Vincent, PhD, BSc

      Affiliations

    • Clinical Safety Research Unit, Department of Bio-Surgery and Surgical Technology, Imperial College, London, UK

Received 1 June 2006; received in revised form 31 March 2007, 30 May 2007 and 25 June 2007; accepted 5 July 2007.

Study objective

Good communication is important in patient care and plays an essential part of teamwork and patient safety. Communication in the emergency department (ED) can be chaotic, with the potential for error resulting from communication overload and problems of communication. The nurse in charge of the ED plays a crucial role in maintaining communication flow. The aims of this study are to identify the features of the communication load on the nurse in charge of the ED.

Methods

This was an observational, nonexperimental study, building on the methods of observation and analysis developed by Coiera. It was carried out in an inner-city hospital ED in London. The nurse in charge of the ED was observed. The following factors were studied: the level of communication, interruptions, and simultaneous events; the channel and purpose of communication; interaction types; unresolved communications and annoying aspects of the observed periods; and the effect of weekday, staffing, and patient levels on the level of communication.

Results

Eleven nurses were observed during 18 observation periods during a total of 20 hours. Analysis revealed that there were 2,019 communication events in 20 hours and that 1,183 (59%) were initiated by the nurse in charge. Two hundred eighty-six (14%) simultaneous events/tasks were identified by the observer. One thousand five hundred twenty-eight (76%) communications involving the nurse in charge were face to face, 144 (7%) were by telephone, 107 (5%) concerned the use of the computer, and 104 (5%) concerned the use of the whiteboard. The largest purpose of communication events was related to patient management (48%). There was a slight relationship between junior medical staff and the level of communication and a moderate relationship between communication load and the number of patients in the ED. In addition, a greater number of nurses on duty were associated with fewer communication events with the nurse in charge.

Conclusion

These findings are an important measure of communication load, which can disrupt memory and lead to mistakes. Improving communication between health care staff by reducing the levels of interruptions and minimizing the volume of irrelevant or unnecessary information exchange could therefore have important implications for patient safety.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editors: Robert L. Wears, MD, MS; Michael L. Callaham, MD

 Author contributions: CV secured the funding for this study. MW managed the project, including the supervision of data collection and analysis. RB facilitated access to the ED. RD collected and analyzed the data. All authors contributed to the monitoring the project and writing the article. MW takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article, that might create any potential conflict of interest. See the Manuscript Submission Agreement in this issue for examples of specific conflicts covered by this statement. UK NHS Patient Safety Research Programme funded the project.

 Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(07)01383-2

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.08.001

Refers to article:

  • Studying the Technical Work of Emergency Care

    Christopher P. Nemeth, Richard I. Cook, Robert L. Wears
    Annals of Emergency Medicine October 2007 (Vol. 50, Issue 4, Pages 384-386)

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 50, Issue 4 , Pages 407-413, October 2007