The clicking doctors: how the mouse restructures clinical attention.

IF 3.6 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Wilhelm Haverkamp
{"title":"The clicking doctors: how the mouse restructures clinical attention.","authors":"Wilhelm Haverkamp","doi":"10.1007/s11019-026-10407-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The attention of office-based physicians is increasingly structured less by the patients in front of them than by the screen beside them - by the clicks, notifications, system lags, and task-switching that the practice information system demands. Research on cognitive load and burnout documents the demands of screen work, but commonly used outcome measures do not directly assess whether repeated fragmentation changes habitual patterns of clinical attention. This article pursues exactly that question: what screen work may change is less the amount of attention than its disposition. Drawing on research into attention residue, system response times, and time-and-motion evidence from ambulatory care, it identifies three mechanisms through which screen work restructures clinical attention: attention residue, response-time fragmentation, and interface-induced switching. Unlike cognitive load, these mechanisms may reshape the disposition of clinical attention itself - the way a physician attends to the patient, which may become shallower, more reactive, and more externally driven. The claim is marked throughout as a research-guiding hypothesis: the three mechanisms are measurable, their cumulative dispositional effect is not yet. It then shows why automation does not dissolve the problem, and why the growing evidence on ambient-AI documentation neither confirms nor refutes it. Because every finding cited remains compatible with simple time scarcity, the article specifies the design that would begin to discriminate between the two: a carry-over design presenting the same unhurried clinical task to the same physicians at the end of a high-switch and a low-switch day, scaled to a cohort with repeated measurement. It closes with three design requirements: switch ceilings, context preservation after interruptions, and protected attentional time.</p>","PeriodicalId":47449,"journal":{"name":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicine Health Care and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11019-026-10407-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The attention of office-based physicians is increasingly structured less by the patients in front of them than by the screen beside them - by the clicks, notifications, system lags, and task-switching that the practice information system demands. Research on cognitive load and burnout documents the demands of screen work, but commonly used outcome measures do not directly assess whether repeated fragmentation changes habitual patterns of clinical attention. This article pursues exactly that question: what screen work may change is less the amount of attention than its disposition. Drawing on research into attention residue, system response times, and time-and-motion evidence from ambulatory care, it identifies three mechanisms through which screen work restructures clinical attention: attention residue, response-time fragmentation, and interface-induced switching. Unlike cognitive load, these mechanisms may reshape the disposition of clinical attention itself - the way a physician attends to the patient, which may become shallower, more reactive, and more externally driven. The claim is marked throughout as a research-guiding hypothesis: the three mechanisms are measurable, their cumulative dispositional effect is not yet. It then shows why automation does not dissolve the problem, and why the growing evidence on ambient-AI documentation neither confirms nor refutes it. Because every finding cited remains compatible with simple time scarcity, the article specifies the design that would begin to discriminate between the two: a carry-over design presenting the same unhurried clinical task to the same physicians at the end of a high-switch and a low-switch day, scaled to a cohort with repeated measurement. It closes with three design requirements: switch ceilings, context preservation after interruptions, and protected attentional time.

点击医生:鼠标如何重组临床注意力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy: A European Journal is the official journal of the European Society for Philosophy of Medicine and Health Care. It provides a forum for international exchange of research data, theories, reports and opinions in bioethics and philosophy of medicine. The journal promotes interdisciplinary studies, and stimulates philosophical analysis centered on a common object of reflection: health care, the human effort to deal with disease, illness, death as well as health, well-being and life. Particular attention is paid to developing contributions from all European countries, and to making accessible scientific work and reports on the practice of health care ethics, from all nations, cultures and language areas in Europe.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书