Gabrielle Trépanier, Philippe Dubuc-Gaudreau, Antoine Brouillard, Rose Nadeau, Nicolas Elazhary
{"title":"A battle for attention: how do emergency physicians respond to interruptions? A scoping review.","authors":"Gabrielle Trépanier, Philippe Dubuc-Gaudreau, Antoine Brouillard, Rose Nadeau, Nicolas Elazhary","doi":"10.1007/s43678-025-00950-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Managing constant interruptions is an intrinsic aspect of emergency medicine practice; however, effective physician responses to mitigate their impact remain unclear. Although interruptions are exceedingly common and closely linked to adverse patient outcomes, the approaches for managing such disruptions have yet to be established. In this study, we aimed to identify how emergency physicians and residents respond to interruptions and the factors influencing their responses.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a scoping review to identify how emergency physicians and residents manage interruptions in the emergency department, searching the following databases using controlled vocabulary: Medline, APA PsycInfo, SCOPUS, and PubMed. Data extraction was conducted using the Covidence platform through a standardized and structured process.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The scoping review identified 18 relevant articles, the majority of which (12/18) employed observational methods, involving a total of 417 emergency physicians. These observations, amounting to 778.6 h, were conducted across 25 emergency departments in 4 countries. Physicians responded to interruptions through task switching, multitasking, deferral, acknowledgment, and rejection. Their responses were influenced by the nature of the interrupted activity, cognitive load management, use of telecommunications, physicians' perceptions, and the work environment.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Emergency departments are inherently fast-paced and prone to interruptions; therefore, it is important to better understand how emergency physicians and residents navigate these disruptions. This study explores how physicians respond to interruptions and provides insights to support clinicians in identifying and developing effective management strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":93937,"journal":{"name":"CJEM","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJEM","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43678-025-00950-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: Managing constant interruptions is an intrinsic aspect of emergency medicine practice; however, effective physician responses to mitigate their impact remain unclear. Although interruptions are exceedingly common and closely linked to adverse patient outcomes, the approaches for managing such disruptions have yet to be established. In this study, we aimed to identify how emergency physicians and residents respond to interruptions and the factors influencing their responses.
Methods: We conducted a scoping review to identify how emergency physicians and residents manage interruptions in the emergency department, searching the following databases using controlled vocabulary: Medline, APA PsycInfo, SCOPUS, and PubMed. Data extraction was conducted using the Covidence platform through a standardized and structured process.
Results: The scoping review identified 18 relevant articles, the majority of which (12/18) employed observational methods, involving a total of 417 emergency physicians. These observations, amounting to 778.6 h, were conducted across 25 emergency departments in 4 countries. Physicians responded to interruptions through task switching, multitasking, deferral, acknowledgment, and rejection. Their responses were influenced by the nature of the interrupted activity, cognitive load management, use of telecommunications, physicians' perceptions, and the work environment.
Conclusion: Emergency departments are inherently fast-paced and prone to interruptions; therefore, it is important to better understand how emergency physicians and residents navigate these disruptions. This study explores how physicians respond to interruptions and provides insights to support clinicians in identifying and developing effective management strategies.
目的:管理持续的中断是急诊医学实践的一个内在方面;然而,有效的医生应对措施,以减轻其影响仍不清楚。虽然中断非常常见,并与患者的不良结果密切相关,但管理这种中断的方法尚未建立。在这项研究中,我们的目的是确定急诊医生和住院医生如何应对中断和影响他们的反应因素。方法:我们进行了一项范围审查,以确定急诊医生和住院医生如何处理急诊科的中断,使用受控词汇搜索以下数据库:Medline, APA PsycInfo, SCOPUS和PubMed。通过标准化和结构化的流程,利用冠状病毒平台进行数据提取。结果:纳入了18篇相关文献,其中大部分(12/18)采用观察方法,共涉及417名急诊医师。这些观察共778.6小时,在4个国家的25个急诊科进行。医生通过任务转换、多任务处理、延迟、承认和拒绝来应对中断。他们的反应受到被打断活动的性质、认知负荷管理、电信的使用、医生的看法和工作环境的影响。结论:急诊科本身就是快节奏的,容易被打断;因此,更好地了解急诊医生和住院医生如何应对这些干扰是很重要的。本研究探讨了医生如何应对干扰,并为临床医生识别和制定有效的管理策略提供了见解。