Advertisement

Applying Human Factors Methods to Explore ‘Work as Imagined’ and ‘Work as Done’ in the Emergency Departments Response to Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Events

  • Saydia Razak
  • Sue Hignett
  • Jo Barnes
  • Graham Hancox
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

The Emergency Department (ED) is a complex, hectic, and high-pressured environment. Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) events are multi-faceted emergencies and present numerous challenges to ED staff (first receivers) with large scale trauma, consequently requiring a combination of complex responses.

Human Factors and Ergonomics (HF/E) methods such as Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA) have been used in healthcare research. However, HF/E methods and theory have not been combined to understand how the ED responds to CBRN events.

This study aimed to compare Work as Imagined (WAI) and Work as Done (WAD) in the ED CBRN response in a UK based hospital. WAI was established by carrying out document analyses on a CBRN plan and WAD by exploring first receivers response to CBRN scenario cards. The responses were converted to HTAs and compared.

The WAI HTAs showed 4–8 phases of general organizational responsibilities during a CBRN event. WAD HTAs placed emphasis on diagnosing and treating presenting conditions. A comparison of WAI and WAD HTAs highlighted common actions and tasks. This study has identified three key differences between WAI and WAD in the ED CBRN response: (1) documentation of the CBRN event (2) treating the patient and (3) diagnosing the presenting complaint.

Findings from this study provide an evidence base which can be used to inform future clinical policy and practice in providing safe and high quality care during CBRN events in the ED.

Keywords

Human Factors and Ergonomics CBRN events Emergency Department 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Professor Tim Coates, Aaron Vogel, Elizabeth Cadman- Moore, Lisa Mclelland, and the first receivers for their enthusiasm and support throughout this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Chilcott R, Wyke S (2016) CBRN incidents. In: Sellwood C, Wapling A (eds) Health emergency preparedness and response. CABI, Oxfordshire, pp 166–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
    Luther M, Lenson S, Reed K (2006) Issues associated in chemical, biological and radiological emergency department response preparedness. Australas Emerg Nurs J 9:79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aenj.2006.03.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koenig KL (2003) Strip and shower: the duck and cover for the 21st century. Ann Emerg Med 42:391–394.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2003.381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chartier LB, Cheng AHY, Stang AS, Vaillancourt S (2017) Quality improvement primer part 1: preparing for a quality improvement project in the emergency department. CJEM 0:1–8.  https://doi.org/10.1017/cem.2017.361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Basu S, Qayyum H, Mason S (2016) Occupational stress in the ED: a systematic literature review. Emerg Med Online.  https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-205827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boyd A, Chambers N, French S, Shaw D, King R, Whitehead A (2014) Emergency planning and management in health care: priority research topics. Heal Syst 3:83–92.  https://doi.org/10.1057/hs.2013.15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    IEA (2017) International Ergonomics Assocation. http://www.iea.cc/whats/
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Shepherd A (2001) Hierarchical task analysis. Taylor and Francis, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chuang S, Hollnagel E (2017) Challenges in implementing resilient healthcare. In: Braithwaite J, Wears RL, Hollnagel E (eds) Resilient healthcare: Reconciling Work-as-Imaged and Work-as-Done. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 72–84Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saurin TA, Rosso CB, Lacey C (2017) Towards a resilient healthcare. In: Braithwaite J, Wears RL, Hollnagel E (eds) Resilient healthcare: Reconciling Work-as-Imaged and Work-as-Done. Ashgate, Surrey, pp 30–42Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hignett S, Wilson JR (2004) The role for qualitative methodology in ergonomics: a case study to explore theoretical issues. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 5:473–493.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220412331303382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9:27–40.  https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj0902027CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Corbin J, Strauss A (2008) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage, CaliforniaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanton N (2006) Hierarchical task analysis: developments, applications, and extensions. Appl Ergon 37:55–79.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2005.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thomas TL, Hsu EB, Kim HK, Colli S, Arana G, Green GB (2005) The incident command system in disasters: evaluation methods for a hospital-based exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med 20:14–23.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X00002090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL (2011) Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Heal Ment Heal Serv Res 42:533–544.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Larson TC, Orr MF, Auf der Heide E, Wu J, Mukhopadhyay S, Kevin-Horton D (2016) Threat of secondary chemical contamination of emergency departments and personnel: an uncommon but recurrent problem. Disaster Med Public Health Prep 10:199–202.  https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Werner NE, Holden RJ (2015) Interruptions in the wild: development of a sociotechnical systems model of interruptions in the emergency department through a systematic review. Appl Ergon 51:244–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.05.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
  25. 25.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations