BackgroundTime nurses spend with patients is associated with improved patient outcomes, reduced errors, and patient and nurse satisfaction. Few studies have measured how nurses distribute their time across tasks. We aimed to quantify how nurses distribute their time across tasks, with patients, in individual tasks, and engagement with other health care providers; and how work patterns changed over a two year period.MethodsProspective observational study of 57 nurses for 191.3 hours (109.8 hours in 2005/2006 and 81.5 in 2008), on two wards in a teaching hospital in Australia. The validated Work Observation Method by Activity Timing (WOMBAT) method was applied. Proportions of time in 10 categories of work, average time per task, time with patients and others, information tools used, and rates of interruptions and multi-tasking were calculated.ResultsNurses spent 37.0%[95%CI: 34.5, 39.3] of their time with patients, which did not change in year 3 [35.7%; 95%CI: 33.3, 38.0]. Direct care, indirect care, medication tasks and professional communication together consumed 76.4% of nurses' time in year 1 and 81.0% in year 3. Time on direct and indirect care increased significantly (respectively 20.4% to 24.8%, P < 0.01;13.0% to 16.1%, P < 0.01). Proportion of time on medication tasks (19.0%) did not change. Time in professional communication declined (24.0% to 19.2%, P < 0.05). Nurses completed an average of 72.3 tasks per hour, with a mean task length of 55 seconds. Interruptions arose at an average rate of two per hour, but medication tasks incurred 27% of all interruptions. In 25% of medication tasks nurses multi-tasked. Between years 1 and 3 nurses spent more time alone, from 27.5%[95%CI 24.5, 30.6] to 39.4%[34.9, 43.9]. Time with health professionals other than nurses was low and did not change.ConclusionsNurses spent around 37% of their time with patients which did not change. Work patterns were increasingly fragmented with rapid changes between tasks of short length. Interruptions were modest but their substantial over-representation among medication tasks raises potential safety concerns. There was no evidence of an increase in team-based, multi-disciplinary care. Over time nurses spent significantly less time talking with colleagues and more time alone.

Critical care settings, both adult and pediatric, involve unique complexities, making them vulnerable to medication errors and adverse patient outcomes. The currently limited evidence base requires research that has sufficient statistical power to identify the true effect of CPOE implementation. There is also a critical need to understand the nature of errors arising post-CPOE and how the addition of CDSSs can be used to provide greater benefit to delivering safe and effective patient care.

ObjectiveTo quantify and compare the time doctors and nurses spent on direct patient care, medication-related tasks, and interactions before and after electronic medication management system (eMMS) introduction.MethodsControlled pre–post, time and motion study of 129 doctors and nurses for 633.2 h on four wards in a 400-bed hospital in Sydney, Australia. We measured changes in proportions of time on tasks and interactions by period, intervention/control group, and profession.ResultseMMS was associated with no significant change in proportions of time spent on direct care or medication-related tasks relative to control wards. In the post-period control ward, doctors spent 19.7% (2 h/10 h shift) of their time on direct care and 7.4% (44.4 min/10 h shift) on medication tasks, compared to intervention ward doctors (25.7% (2.6 h/shift; p=0.08) and 8.5% (51 min/shift; p=0.40), respectively). Control ward nurses in the post-period spent 22.1% (1.9 h/8.5 h shift) of their time on direct care and 23.7% on medication tasks compared to intervention ward nurses (26.1% (2.2 h/shift; p=0.23) and 22.6% (1.9 h/shift; p=0.28), respectively). We found intervention ward doctors spent less time alone (p=0.0003) and more time with other doctors (p=0.003) and patients (p=0.009). Nurses on the intervention wards spent less time with doctors following eMMS introduction (p=0.0001).ConclusionseMMS introduction did not result in redistribution of time away from direct care or towards medication tasks. Work patterns observed on these intervention wards were associated with previously reported significant reductions in prescribing error rates relative to the control wards.

This study provides benchmark data on the use of imaging for back pain in an Australian ED, an area which has been largely unexplored. The rate of imaging in the ED was higher than previously reported in a General Practice setting. Consistent with guidelines, patients older than 70 were more than twice as likely to receive imaging compared to younger patients. It was beyond the scope of the current study to determine whether these images were clinically indicated and further research is required to determine if initiatives to reduce imaging in this population are warranted.

Objective To conduct a cost–effectiveness analysis of a hospital electronic medication management system (eMMS).Methods We compared costs and benefits of paper-based prescribing with a commercial eMMS (CSC MedChart) on one cardiology ward in a major 326-bed teaching hospital, assuming a 15-year time horizon and a health system perspective. The eMMS implementation and operating costs were obtained from the study site. We used data on eMMS effectiveness in reducing potential adverse drug events (ADEs), and potential ADEs intercepted, based on review of 1 202 patient charts before (n = 801) and after (n = 401) eMMS. These were combined with published estimates of actual ADEs and their costs.Results The rate of potential ADEs following eMMS fell from 0.17 per admission to 0.05; a reduction of 71%. The annualized eMMS implementation, maintenance, and operating costs for the cardiology ward were A$61 741 (US$55 296). The estimated reduction in ADEs post eMMS was approximately 80 actual ADEs per year. The reduced costs associated with these ADEs were more than sufficient to offset the costs of the eMMS. Estimated savings resulting from eMMS implementation were A$63–66 (US$56–59) per admission (A$97 740–$102 000 per annum for this ward). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated results were robust when both eMMS effectiveness and costs of actual ADEs were varied substantially.Conclusion The eMMS within this setting was more effective and less expensive than paper-based prescribing. Comparison with the few previous full economic evaluations available suggests a marked improvement in the cost–effectiveness of eMMS, largely driven by increased effectiveness of contemporary eMMs in reducing medication errors.