No abstract

BackgroundWorkarounds circumvent or temporarily ‘fix’ perceived workflow hindrances to meet a goal or to achieve it more readily. Behaviours fitting the definition of workarounds often include violations, deviations, problem solving, improvisations, procedural failures and shortcuts. Clinicians implement workarounds in response to the complexity of delivering patient care. One imperative to understand workarounds lies in their influence on patient safety. This paper assesses the peer reviewed empirical evidence available on the use, proliferation, conceptualisation, rationalisation and perceived impact of nurses’ use of workarounds in acute care settings.MethodsA literature assessment was undertaken in 2011–2012. Snowballing technique, reference tracking, and a systematic search of twelve academic databases were conducted to identify peer reviewed published studies in acute care settings examining nurses’ workarounds. Selection criteria were applied across three phases. 58 studies were included in the final analysis and synthesis. Using an analytic frame, these studies were interrogated for: workarounds implemented in acute care settings by nurses; factors contributing to the development and proliferation of workarounds; the perceived impact of workarounds; and empirical evidence of nurses’ conceptualisation and rationalisation of workarounds.ResultsThe majority of studies examining nurses’ workarounds have been published since 2008, predominantly in the United States. Studies conducted across a variety of acute care settings use diverse data collection methods. Nurses’ workarounds, primarily perceived negatively, are both individually and collectively enacted. Organisational, work process, patient-related, individual, social and professional factors contribute to the proliferation of workarounds. Group norms, local and organisational culture, ‘being competent’, and collegiality influence the implementation of workarounds.ConclusionWorkarounds enable, yet potentially compromise, the execution of patient care. In some contexts such improvisations may be deemed necessary to the successful implementation of quality care, in others they are counterproductive. Workarounds have individual and cooperative characteristics. Few studies examine nurses’ individual and collective conceptualisation and rationalisation of workarounds or measure their impact. The importance of displaying competency (image management), collegiality and organisational and cultural norms play a role in nurses’ use of workarounds.

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology convened a working group to evaluate current practices regarding organ weights in toxicology studies. A survey was distributed to pharmaceutical, veterinary, chemical, food/nutritional and consumer product companies in Europe, North America, and Japan. Responses were compiled to identify organs routinely weighed for various study types in rodent and non-rodent species, compare methods of organ weighing, provide perspectives on the value of organ weights and identify the scientist(s) responsible for organ weight data interpretation. Data were evaluated as a whole as well as by industry type and geographic location. Regulatory guidance documents describing organ weighing practices are generally available, however, they differ somewhat dependent on industry type and regulatory agency. While questionnaire respondents unanimously stated that organ weights were a good screening tool to identify treatment-related effects, opinions varied as to which organ weights are most valuable. The liver, kidneys, and testes were commonly weighed and most often considered useful by most respondents. Other organs that break were commonly weighed included brain, adrenal glands, ovaries, thyroid glands, uterus, heart, and spleen. Lungs, lymph nodes, and other sex organs were weighed infrequently in routine studies, but were often weighed in specialized studies such as inhalation, immunotoxicity, and reproduction studies. Organ-to-body weight ratios were commonly calculated and were considered more useful when body weights were affected. Organ to brain weight ratios were calculated by most North American companies, but rarely according to respondents representing veterinary product or European companies. Statistical analyses were generally performed by most respondents. Pathologists performed interpretation of organ weight data for the majority of the industries.

The evaluation of organ weights in toxicology studies is an integral component in the assessment of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and medical devices. The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) has created recommendations for weighing organs in GLP general toxicology studies lasting from 7 days to 1 year. The STP recommends that liver, heart, kidneys, brain, testes, and adrenal glands be weighed in all multidose general toxicology studies. Thyroid gland and pituitary gland weights are recommended for all species except mice. Spleen and thymus should be weighed in rodent studies and may be weighed in non-rodent studies. Weighing of reproductive organs is most valuable in sexually mature animals. Variability in age, sexual maturity, and stage of cycle in non-rodents and reproductive senescence in female rodents may complicate or limit interpretation of reproductive organ weights. The STP recommends that testes of all species be weighed in multidose general toxicology studies. Epididymides and prostate should be weighed in rat studies and may be weighed on a case-by-case basis in non-rodent and mouse studies. Weighing of other organs including female reproductive organs should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Organ weights are not recommended for any carcinogenicity studies including the alternative mouse bioassays. Regardless of the study type or organs evaluated, organ weight changes must be evaluated within the context of the compound class, mechanism of action, and the entire data set for that study.