2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103141
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Exploring SEIPS 2.0 as a model for analyzing care transitions across work systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Since this analysis was performed, other studies (e.g. Hay, Klonek, & Parker, 2020;Werner et al, 2020) have also adopted a similar approach to generating work system configurations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since this analysis was performed, other studies (e.g. Hay, Klonek, & Parker, 2020;Werner et al, 2020) have also adopted a similar approach to generating work system configurations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All parts of SEIPS 101 (people, environments, tools, tasks, processes and outcomes) can be observed, measured, analysed and manipulated, though how this is done will vary case-by-case. 13 A project or analysis should address each part but not necessarily every variation or combination. For example, a hospital service may be characterised by hundreds if not thousands of people, environments, tools, tasks, processes and outcomes.…”
Section: Using Seips 101mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We observed disposition decision-making to involve the patient, care partners, and a variety of ED and consulting clinicians. The involvement of these multiple roles across time and, in some cases, across work systems, required intentional communication, coordination, and collaboration, which could indicate some level of teaming (Salas et al, 2008;Werner et al, 2020). The combination of work system elements we identified are likely to contribute to high mental workload for ED clinicians, which has been associated with poor decision quality (Shanafelt et al, 2002;Weigl et al, 2016).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%