Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW)

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 395–419 | Cite as

Triage Drift: A Workplace Study in a Pediatric Emergency Department

  • Pernille BjørnEmail author
  • Kjetil Rødje


This paper presents a workplace study of triage work practices within an emergency department (ED). We examine the practices, procedures, and organization in which ED staff uses tools and technologies when coordinating the essential activity of assessing and sorting patients arriving at the ED. The paper provides in-depth empirical observations describing the situated work practices of triage work, and the complex collaborative nature of the triage process. We identify and conceptualize triage work practices as comprising patient trajectories, triage nurse activities, coordinative artefacts and exception handling; we also articulate how these four features of triage practices constitute and connect workflows, organize and re-organize time and space during the triage process. Finally we conceptualize these connections as an assessing and sorting mechanism in collaborative work. We argue that the complexities involved in this mechanism are a necessary asset of triage work, which calls for a reassessment of the concept of triage drift.

Key words

emergency work health care triage coordinative artefacts exception handling workplace study assessing and sorting mechanism triage drift 



This study was conducted as a part of the research project ACTION for Health. ACTION for Health is funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Grant #512-2003-1017, titled ‘The role of technology in the production, consumption and use of health information: Implications for policy and practice’ with contributions from Simon Fraser University and Vancouver General Hospital.


  1. Andersson, A.-K., M. Omberg and M. Svedlund (2006): Triage in the Emergency Department—A Qualitative Study of the Factors Which Nurses Consider When Making Decisions. British Association of Critical Care Nurses. Nursing in Critical Care, vol. 11(3), pp. 136–145, doi: 10.1111/j.1362-1017.2006.00162.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balka, E. and S. Whitehouse (2007): Whose Work Practice? Situating an Electronic Triage System Within a Complex System. In J. Aarts (ed): Socio-technical Approaches to Health Informatics. Studies in Health Technology and InformaticsAmsterdam, Netherlands: IOS.Google Scholar
  3. Bardram, J.E. (2000): Temporal Coordination, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), vol. 9, pp. 157–187.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, M. (1998): The Politics of Technology: On Bringing Theory into Technological Design. Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 23(4), pp. 456–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beveridge, R., B. Clarke, L. Janes, N. Savage, J. Thompson, G. Dodd et al. (1998): Implemention Guidelines for The Canadian Emergency Department Triage & Acuity Scale (CTAS) (No. CTAS16), Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP), National Emergency Nurses Affiliation of Canada (NENA) and L’association des Medecins d’urgence du Quebec (AMUQ).Google Scholar
  6. Bjørn, P. (2008): Canadian Children’s Emergency Departments: Triage Practice & Electronic Triage Systems, Burnaby, School of Communication, ACTION for Health, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
  7. Bjørn, P. and E. Balka (2007): Health Care Categories Have Politics too: Unpacking the Managerial Agendas of Electronic Triage Systems. In L. Bannon, I. Wagner, C. Gutwin, R. Harper and K. Schmidt (eds): ECSCW 2007: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative WorkIreland: Limerick, pp. 371–390.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, K., J. Hughes, M. Rouncefield and T. Hemmings (2006): When a Bed Is Not a Bed: Calculation and Calculability in Complex Organisational Settings. In K. Clark, G. Hardstone, M. Rouncefield and I. Sommerville (eds): Trust in Technology: A Socio-technical Perspective Netherlands: Springer, pp. 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong, S., M. Bullard, D. Meuer, S. Blitz, A. Ohinmaa, B. Holroyd et al (2006a): Predictive Validity of a Computerized Emergency Triage Tool. Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 13(5), p. 307, doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2006.03.366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dong, S., M. Bullard, D. Meuer, S. Blitz, A. Ohinmaa, B. Holroyd et al (2006b): Reliability of Computerized Emergency Triage. Academic Emergency Medicine, vol. 13(3), pp. 269–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eggertson, L. (2004): ED Problems Results of Bed Shortages, Doctors Contend. Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 170(11), pp. 1653–1654CMAJ, doi: 10.1503/cmaj.1040614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerson, E.M. and S.L. Star (1986): Analyzing Due Process in the Workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 4(3), pp. 257–270, doi: 10.1145/214427.214431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaser, B.G. and A.L. Strauss (1967): The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  14. Goorman, E. and M. Berg (2000): Modelling Nursing Activities: Electronic Patient Records and Their Discontents. Nursing Inquiry, vol. 7(1), pp. 3–9, doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1800.2000.00053.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grafstein, E., B. Unger, M. Bullard and G. Innes (2006): Canadian Emergency Department Information System (CEDIS), Presenting Complaint List (Version 1.0). Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM), vol. 5(1), pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  16. Heath, C., H. Knoblauch and P. Luff (2000): Technology and Social Interaction: The Emergence of Workplace Studies. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 51(2), pp. 299–320, doi: 10.1080/00071310050030190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heath, C. and P. Luff (1992): Collaboration and Control: Crisis Management and Multimedia Technology in London Underground Line Control Rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), vol. 1, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar
  18. Heath, C., P. Luff and M.S. Svensson (2003): Technology and Medical Practice. Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 25, pp. 75–96.Google Scholar
  19. Innes, G., M. Murray and E. Grafstein (2001): A Consensus-based Process to Define Standard National Data Elements for a Canadian Emergency Department Information Systems. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM), vol. 3(4), pp. 277–284.Google Scholar
  20. Jiménez, J.G., M. Murray, R. Beveridge, J.P. Pons, E.A. Cortés, J.B.F. Garrigós et al (2003): Implementation of the Canadian Emergency Department Triage and Acuity Scale (CTAS) in the Principality of Andorra: Can Triage Parameters Serve as Emergency Department Quality Indicators? Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine (CJEM), vol. 5(5), pp. 315–322.Google Scholar
  21. Kobayashi, M., S. Fussell, Y. Xiao and J. Seagull (2005): Work Coordination, Workflow, and Workarounds in a Medical Context, Computer Human Interaction (CHI). Portland, Oregon, USA: ACM.Google Scholar
  22. Law, J. (2004): After Method: Mess Is Social Science Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Luff, P., J. Hindmarch, and C. Heath (eds) (2000): Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. (2007): retrieved on May 24, 2007, Retrieved May 24, 2007,
  25. Orlikowski, W. (1995): Categories: Concept, Content and Context. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), vol. 3, pp. 73–78.Google Scholar
  26. Orlikowski, W.J. (1993): CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development. MIS Quarterly, vol. 17(3), pp. 309–340, doi: 10.2307/249774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ospina, M., K. Bond, M. Schull, G. Innes, S. Blitz, C. Friesen, et al. (2006): Technology Report: Measuring Overcrowding in Emergency Departments—A Call for Standardization [Technology report no 67.1], Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologica in Health, Ottawa: Canada.Google Scholar
  28. Plowman, L., Y. Rogers and M. Ramage (1995): What Are Workplace Studies for? University of Sussex: Lancaster.Google Scholar
  29. Schmidt, K. (1998): The Critical Role of Workplace Studies in CSCW. In C. Heath, J. Hindmarsh and P. Luff (eds): Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing Design.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992): Taking CSCW Seriously: Supporting Articulation Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), vol. 1(1–2), pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
  31. Schmidt, K. and C. Simone (1996): Coordination Mechanisms: Towards a Conceptual Foundation of CSCW System Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW). International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), vol. 5, pp. 155–200.Google Scholar
  32. Strauss, A., S. Fagerhaugh, B. Suczek and C. Wiener (1985): Social Organization of Medical Work. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  33. Suchman, L. (1987): Plans and Situated Actions. The Problem of Human Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Suchman, L. (1995): Making Work Visible. Communications of the ACM, vol. 38(9), pp. 56–64, doi: 10.1145/223248.223263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Timmermans, S. and M. Berg (2003): The Practice of Medical Technology. Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 25, pp. 97–114.Google Scholar
  36. Tjora, A.H. (2000): The Technological Mediation of the Nursing-medical Boundary. Sociology of Health & Illness, vol. 22(6), pp. 721–741, doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversityBurnabyCanada
  2. 2.IT UniversityCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations