Intensive Care Unit Collaboration and Workflow in the Information Age

  • Soojin ParkEmail author
  • Michelle L. Rogers


The intensive care unit (ICU) is a complex amalgam of physical and cognitive workflows of its various personnel. The ICU team is compiled of persons with widely varying scopes of practice, levels of experience, roles, and responsibilities. Basic categories of personnel include bedside nurse, charge nurse, resident, advanced practice provider, pharmacist, nutritionist, fellow, attending, and consultant. Together, team members must collaborate to learn about and stabilize the critically ill patient, diagnose clinical states, plan and execute treatment, and monitor illness and recovery. The disparate geography and workflow of each individual guarantees that communication between team members will be complex. Issues of collaboration, teamwork, communication, and workflow are therefore paramount.

Team members may interact with the same technology with fundamentally different purposes, aligned with their scope of practice. The study of distributed cognition and how it affects interaction with health information technology (HIT) can better inform standards of its development. In every local ICU and hospital environment, the transmission of information is accomplished in unique combinations of verbal, paper, and electronic methods. When alterations occur in these highly evolved communication ecosystems (such as the introduction of new members or implementation of new electronic systems), the sturdiness of its homeostasis is tested, and patient safety can be put at risk.


Information technology Workflow Communication Electronic medical records 


  1. 1.
    Hutchins E. Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang J, Norman DA. Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cogn Sci. 1994;18(1):87–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bricon-Souf N, Renard JM, Beuscart R. Dynamic workflow model for complex activity in intensive care unit. Int J Med Inform. 1999;53(2–3):143–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malhotra S, Jordan D, Shortliffe E, Patel VL. Workflow modeling in critical care: piecing together your own puzzle. J Biomed Inform. 2007;40(2):81–92. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen T, Blatter B, Almeida C, Shortliffe E, Patel V. A cognitive blueprint of collaboration in context: distributed cognition in the psychiatric emergency department. Artif Intell Med. 2006;37(2):73–83. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alvarez G, Coiera E. Interruptive communication patterns in the intensive care unit ward round. Int J Med Inform. 2005;74(10):791–6. Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laxmisan A, Hakimzada F, Sayan OR, Green RA, Zhang J, Patel VL. The multitasking clinician: decision-making and cognitive demand during and after team handoffs in emergency care. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(11–12):801–11. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Westbrook JI, Ampt A, Kearney L, Rob MI. All in a day’s work: an observational study to quantify how and with whom doctors on hospital wards spend their time. Med J Aust. 2008;188(9):506–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edwards A, Fitzpatrick LA, Augustine S, Trzebucki A, Cheng SL, Presseau C, Mersmann C, Heckman B, Kachnowski S. Synchronous communication facilitates interruptive workflow for attending physicians and nurses in clinical settings. Int J Med Inform. 2009;78(9):629–37. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weigl M, Muller A, Zupanc A, Glaser J, Angerer P. Hospital doctors’ workflow interruptions and activities: an observation study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2011;20(6):491–7. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brixey JJ, Robinson DJ, Turley JP, Zhang J. Initiators of interruption in workflow: the role of MDs and RNs. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;130:103–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brixey JJ, Robinson DJ, Turley JP, Zhang J. The roles of MDs and RNs as initiators and recipients of interruptions in workflow. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(6):e109–15. Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kalisch BJ, Aebersold M. Interruptions and multitasking in nursing care. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010;36(3):126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hopkinson SG, Jennings BM. Interruptions during nurses’ work: a state-of-the-science review. Res Nurs Health. 2013;36(1):38–53. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Karsh BT. Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: review and reappraisal. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(4):304–12. Scholar
  16. 16.
    Biron AD, Lavoie-Tremblay M, Loiselle CG. Characteristics of work interruptions during medication administration. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2009;41(4):330–6. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kreckler S, Catchpole K, Bottomley M, Handa A, McCulloch P. Interruptions during drug rounds: an observational study. Br J Nurs. 2008;17(21):1326–30. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Palese A, Sartor A, Costaperaria G, Bresadola V. Interruptions during nurses’ drug rounds in surgical wards: observational study. J Nurs Manag. 2009;17(2):185–92. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Potter P, Wolf L, Boxerman S, Grayson D, Sledge J, Dunagan C, Evanoff B. Understanding the cognitive work of nursing in the acute care environment. J Nurs Adm. 2005;35(7–8):327–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):683–90. Scholar
  21. 21.
    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Electronic health records and meaningful use. 2010. Accessed 14 Jul 2010.
  22. 22.
    Ash JS, Sittig DF, Dykstra RH, Guappone K, Carpenter JD, Seshadri V. Categorizing the unintended sociotechnical consequences of computerized provider order entry. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76(Suppl 1):S21–7. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(10):742–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fischer JS, Blonde L. Impact of an electronic medical record on diabetes practice workflow. Clin Diabet. 1999;17:89–90.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America IoM. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dansky KH, Gamm LD, Vasey JJ, Barsukiewicz CK. Electronic medical records: are physicians ready? J Healthc Manag. 1999;44(6):440–454; discussion 454–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Patel VL, Kushniruk AW, Yang S, Yale JF. Impact of a computer-based patient record system on data collection, knowledge organization, and reasoning. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2000;7(6):569–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rogers ML. The socio-technical impact of electronic medical records on the work activities and work processes in a small clinic. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management (ODAM), Maui, Hawaii; 2005. p. 22–5.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patterson ES, Cook RI, Render ML. Improving patient safety by identifying side effects from introducing bar coding in medication administration. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(5):540–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cook RI, Woods DD. Adapting to new technology in the operating room. Hum Factors. 1996;38(4):593–613. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saleem JJ, Patterson ES, Militello L, Render ML, Orshansky G, Asch SM. Exploring barriers and facilitators to the use of computerized clinical reminders. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):438–47. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ornstein SM. Electronic medical records in family practice: the time is now. J Fam Pract. 1997;44(1):45–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Elson RB, Connelly DP. Computerized patient records in primary care. Their role in mediating guideline-driven physician behavior change. Arch Fam Med. 1995;4(8):698–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reddy M, Seeraty C, Lin T, et al. Effects of computer-based patient records on physician-patient interactions: physicians’ perspectives. In: Proceedings of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2000 Nov 3–7, Los Angeles, CA. 2000.
  35. 35.
    Phansalkar S, Edworthy J, Hellier E, Seger DL, Schedlbauer A, Avery AJ, Bates DW. A review of human factors principles for the design and implementation of medication safety alerts in clinical information systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(5):493–501. Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kaplan B. Addressing organizational issues into the evaluation of medical systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1997;4(2):94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y. The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(5):505–16. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patterson ES, Roth EM, Render ML. Handoffs during nursing shift changes in acute care. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 11. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2005. p. 1057–61.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang J, Patel VL, Johnson KA, et al. Designing human-centered distributed information systems. IEEE Intell Syst. 2002;17:42–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Harrison MI, Koppel R, Bar-Lev S. Unintended consequences of information technologies in health care—an interactive sociotechnical analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(5):542–9. Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ash JS, Berg M, Coiera E. Some unintended consequences of information technology in health care: the nature of patient care information system-related errors. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004;11(2):104–12. Scholar
  42. 42.
    Voshell M, Woods DD, Phillips F. Overcoming the keyhole in human-robot coordination: simulation and evaluation. In: The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 3. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2005. p. 442–6.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Balka E. Ghost charts and shadow records: implication for system design. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2010;160(1):686–90.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wears RL. The chart is dead—long live the chart. Ann Emerg Med. 2008;52(4):390–1. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Morrison C, Jones M, Blackwell A, Vuylsteke A. Electronic patient record use during ward rounds: a qualitative study of interaction between medical staff. Crit Care. 2008;12(6):R148. Scholar
  46. 46.
    Morrison C, Fitzpatrick G, Blackwell A. Multi-disciplinary collaboration during ward rounds: embodied aspects of electronic medical record usage. Int J Med Inform. 2011;80(8):e96–111. Scholar
  47. 47.
    Nielsen J. Finding usability problems through heuristic evaluation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Monterey, CA: ACM; 1992. p. 373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Saparova D, Basic J, Lu Y, et al. Usability problems in patient- and clinician-oriented health information systems: what are they and how do they differ? In: Digital human modeling and applications in health, safety, ergonomics, and risk management. Healthcare and safety of the environment and transport. Berlin: Springer; 2013. p. 276–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Coiera E, Tombs V. Communication behaviours in a hospital setting: an observational study. BMJ. 1998;316(7132):673–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fitzpatrick LA, Melnikas AJ, Weathers M, Kachnowski SW. Understanding communication capacity. Communication patterns and ICT usage in clinical settings. J Healthc Inf Manag. 2008;22(3):34–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu R, Rossos P, Quan S, Reeves S, Lo V, Wong B, Cheung M, Morra D. An evaluation of the use of smartphones to communicate between clinicians: a mixed-methods study. J Med Internet Res. 2011;13(3):e59. Scholar
  52. 52.
    Patterson ES, Woods DD, Cook RI, Render ML. Collaborative cross-checking to enhance resilience. Cogn Tech Work. 2007;9(3):155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld D. Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness. In: Sutton RS, Staw BM, editors. Research in organizational behavior, vol. 1. Stanford: Jai Press; 1999. p. 81–123.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wu RC, Tran K, Lo V, O’Leary KJ, Morra D, Quan SD, Perrier L. Effects of clinical communication interventions in hospitals: a systematic review of information and communication technology adoptions for improved communication between clinicians. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(11):723–32. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Columbia University College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.New York Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Information Science, College of Computing and InformaticsDrexel UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations