Advertisement

How Cognitive Artifact Support of Acute Care Distributed Cognition Affects Patient Safety

  • Christopher P. Nemeth
  • Richard I. Cook
  • Michael O’Connor
  • P. Allan Klock

Abstract

Demands for acute care are uncertain and change frequently, while resources to meet them are constrained and subject to production pressure. To manage this conflict, the anesthesiology coordinator makes continual assessments and tradeoffs between and among patients and work groups. The complexity and uncertainty of the acute environment requires the creation and use of common artifacts such as display boards, lists, and worksheets that are part of the distributed cognition. We describe a project in which ethnographic methods reveal the strategies, shown in schemata analyses, that anesthesia coordinators use to develop schedules. Such research promises to benefit the evolution of medical informatics, which is the software and computing systems that support the organization, management and use of health care information. Experience shows that digital replicas of physical cognitive artifacts are often blind to the needs of those who are expected to use them. The resulting effects of this clumsy automation can impede staff performance rather than improve it. The research approach described here will assist in understanding the traits of acute care technical work and successful physical artifacts, which promises to improve medical informatics. Better digital cognitive artifacts will benefit work processes, including planning, communications and resource management and thereby benefit patient safety.

Keywords

Acute Care Cognitive Activity Medical Informatics Work Domain Cognitive Artifact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Barley, S.R. and Orr, J.E. (Eds.) Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in U.S. Settings. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, 1997Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook, R., Woods, D. and Miller, C. (1998). A Tale of Two Stories: Contrasting Views of Patient Safety. National Health Care Safety Council of the National Patient Safety Foundation, American Medical Association, Chicago, 1998Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blumer, H. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1986Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hutchins, E. Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press Cambridge, MA, 1995Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nemeth, C. The Master Schedule: How Cognitive Artifacts Affect Distributed Cognition in Acute Care. Dissertation Abstracts International 64/08, 3990 (UMI No. ATT3101124)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conant R. C, and Ashby W.R. “Every Good Regulator of a System Must Be Model of that System”, Int. J. Systems Science 1: 2, 89–97, 1970CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heath, C. and Luff, P. Work, Interaction and Technology: Empirical Studies of Social Ergonomics. (Technical Report EPC-1991-108). In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ergonomics Paris FR. Taylor and Francis, London, 1991Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher P. Nemeth
    • 1
  • Richard I. Cook
    • 1
  • Michael O’Connor
    • 1
  • P. Allan Klock
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Technologies LaboratoryUniversity of ChicagoChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations