Workplace distractions in the digital era – are smartphones a threat to safety or an essential tool?

Abstract

Twitter: @DrCliffSheltonAnaesthesia is a technology-dependant specialty. While the impact of total intravenous anaesthesia, video laryngoscopes and ultrasound-guidanceto name but a few influential recent technologieshave been extensively studied [e.g. 1-4], the professional use of smartphones in anaesthesia remains relatively under-investigated. This is perhaps an oversight considering that this ubiquitous accessory now reaches into nearly every aspect of our lives, from communication to study, shopping and dining, and indeedto professional practice.In this issue of Anaesthesia, van Harten et al. report "An observational study of distractions in the operating theatre"[5], which among other findings, highlights the (distracting) role played by smartphones. In this editorial, we consider the utility and methodology of van Harten et al.'s work, reflect on the extent to which smartphones may threaten patient safety in anaesthesia, and ask how this can be balanced against their prominent and increasing role as a professional tool.

How to plan and report a qualitative study

“…Methods should be chosen to align with the research question. For example, interviews may be the optimal method in a study which aims to elicit what people think about a subject [5], whereas observation would be more appropriate in a study which aims to understand how people act in the workplace [5, 6, 12, 13].…”

“…This required a combination of methods. Initially, a quantitative approach was used to record `when´distractions occurred and this was followed with a qualitative phase based on participant observation to better understand the problem [12,13]. The `population, intervention, control, outcome´(PICO) structure is used frequently in quantitative research, and a modified version based on population, interest and context (PICo) can be used to formulate qualitative research questions (Table 1) [14].…”

Defining the digital workplace: A systematic literature review

“…x, pp. 0xx-0xxsafety and health(Abdullah, 2018;Baptista, Stein, Klein, Watson-Manheim, & Lee, 2020;de Souza Vianna, Leite, Butterworth, Taiar, & Machado, 2020;Dodel & Mesch, 2020;Englert, Woodcock, & Cant, 2020;Ferreira, Araújo, Fernandes, & Miguel, 2017;Garza, 2019;Hanafizadeh, Ghandchi, & Asgarimehr, 2017;Hofma, Avital, Blegind Jensen, & Hofma, 2017;Kim, Park, Jeong, Josue, & Valdez, 2018;Koch, Yan, & Curry, 2019;Kotsopoulos et al, 2017;Kuhlang et al, 2019;Lee et al, 2019;Li & Herd, 2017;Mah et al, 2016;Meyer von Wolff et al, 2019;Meyer Von Wolff et al, 2020;Miele & Tirabeni, 2020;Pompeii, 2020;Richardson, 2021;Rodriguez- Bustelo et al, 2020;Shelton & Smith, 2021;von Wolff et al, 2019;Zhang & Leidner, 2014) or on importance of organizational factors such are management, human resources management, innovation management and employee acceptance for the success of digital workplace or its components(Bader & Kaiser, 2017;Baptista et al, 2020;Eckhardt et al, 2018;Fabbri, Mandreoli, Martoglia, & Scapolan, 2019;Frank, Schmidt, Gimpel, & Schoch, 2018;Genzorova, Corejova, & Stalmasekova, 2019;Gerten, Beckmann, & Bellmann, 2019;...…”