Evaluation of Attention Switching and Duration of Electronic Inbox Work Among Primary Care Physicians.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 01 2021
04 01 2021
Historique:
entrez:
21
1
2021
pubmed:
22
1
2021
medline:
13
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Primary care physicians (PCPs) report multitasking during workdays while processing electronic inbox messages, but scant systematic information exists on attention switching and its correlates in the health care setting. To describe PCPs' frequency of attention switching associated with electronic inbox work, identify potentially modifiable factors associated with attention switching and inbox work duration, and compare the relative association of attention switching and other factors with inbox work duration. This cross-sectional study of the work of 1275 PCPs in an integrated group serving 4.5 million patients used electronic health record (EHR) access logs from March 1 to 31, 2018, to evaluate PCPs' frequency of attention switching. Statistical analysis was performed from October 15, 2018, to August 28, 2020. Attention switching was defined as switching between the electronic inbox, other EHR work, and non-EHR periods. Inbox work duration included minutes spent on electronic inbox message views and related EHR tasks. Multivariable models controlled for the exposures. The 1275 PCPs studied (721 women [56.5%]; mean [SD] age, 45.9 [8.5] years) had a mean (SD) of 9.0 (7.6) years of experience with the medical group and received a mean (SD) of 332.6 (148.3) (interquartile range, 252-418) new inbox messages weekly. On workdays, PCPs made a mean (SD) of 79.4 (21.8) attention switches associated with inbox work and did a mean (SD) 64.2 (18.7) minutes of inbox work over the course of 24 hours on workdays. In the model for attention switching, each additional patient secure message beyond the reference value was associated with 0.289 (95% CI, 0.217-0.362) additional switches, each additional results message was associated with 0.203 (95% CI, 0.127-0.278) additional switches, each additional request message was associated with 0.190 (95% CI, 0.124-0.257) additional switches, and each additional administrative message was associated with 0.262 (95% CI, 0.166-0.358) additional switches. Having a panel (a list of patients assigned to a primary care team) with more elderly patients (0.144 switches per percentage increase [95% CI, 0.009-0.278]) and higher inbox work duration (0.468 switches per additional minute of inbox work [95% CI, 0.411-0.524]) were also associated with higher attention switching involving the inbox. In the model for inbox work duration, each additional patient secure message beyond the reference value was associated with 0.151 (95% CI, 0.085-0.217) additional minutes, each additional results message was associated with 0.338 (95% CI, 0.272-0.404) additional minutes, each additional request message was associated with 0.101 (95% CI, 0.041-0.161) additional minutes, and each additional administrative message was associated with 0.179 (95% CI, 0.093-0.265) additional minutes. A higher percentage of the panel's patients initiating messages (0.386 minutes per percentage increase [95% CI, 0.026-0.745]) and attention switches (0.373 minutes per switch [95% CI, 0.328-0.419]) were also associated with higher inbox work duration. In addition, working at a medical center where all PCPs had high inbox work duration was independently associated with high or low inbox work duration. This study suggests that PCPs make frequent attention switches during workdays while processing electronic inbox messages. Message quantity was associated with both attention switching and inbox work duration. Physician and patient panel characteristics had less association with attention switching and inbox work duration. Assisting PCPs with message quantity might help modulate both attention switching and inbox work duration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33475754
pii: 2775363
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.31856
pmc: PMC7821028
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2031856Références
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Oct 2;2(10):e1912638
pubmed: 31584683
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Dec 6;165(11):753-760
pubmed: 27595430
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2001 Aug;27(4):763-97
pubmed: 11518143
J Gen Intern Med. 2019 Sep;34(9):1825-1832
pubmed: 31292905
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Sep;15(5):419-426
pubmed: 28893811
Health Aff (Millwood). 2017 Apr 1;36(4):655-662
pubmed: 28373331
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Jul 1;27(9):1401-1410
pubmed: 32719859
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Oct 15;:
pubmed: 33063087
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2020 Apr 1;27(4):639-643
pubmed: 32027360
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Apr 26;170(8):683-90
pubmed: 20421552
Ann Intern Med. 2020 Feb 4;172(3):169-174
pubmed: 31931523
Qual Saf Health Care. 2010 Aug;19(4):284-9
pubmed: 20463369
Psychol Rev. 1997 Jan;104(1):3-65
pubmed: 9009880
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Dec 2;2(12):e1918287
pubmed: 31880798
Health Aff (Millwood). 2019 Jul;38(7):1073-1078
pubmed: 31260371
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Aug;68(2):189-95
pubmed: 26585046
Healthc Technol Lett. 2017 Sep 18;4(5):188-192
pubmed: 29184663
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Nov;70(5):683-687
pubmed: 28601266
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2003 Mar;(74):1-3
pubmed: 12723164
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 Aug;27(8):655-663
pubmed: 29317463
BMJ Open. 2017 Dec 22;7(12):e019074
pubmed: 29275350