Artefactual Multiplicity: A Study of Emergency-Department Whiteboards

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Whiteboards are highly important to the work in emergency departments (EDs). As a collaborative technology ED whiteboards are usually placed in the dynamic centre of the ED, and all ED staff will approach the whiteboard regularly to organize their individual yet interdependent work. Currently, digital whiteboards are replacing the ordinary dry-erase whiteboards in EDs, which bring the design and use of whiteboards in ED to our attention. Previous studies have applied the theoretical lenses of common information spaces, coordination, and awareness to the investigation of whiteboard use and design. Based on an ethnographic study of the work practices involving two differently designed ED whiteboards, we found these concepts insufficient to explain one essential characteristic of these heterogeneous artefacts. In this paper, we suggest an additional theoretical concept describing this characteristic of heterogeneous artefacts; namely artefactual multiplicity. Artefactual multiplicity identifies not only the multiple functions of heterogeneous artefacts but also the intricate relations between these multiple functionalities.

Key words

whiteboard emergency department work practice design artefactual multiplicity 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is a part of the research project ACTION for Health, 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.

References

  1. Aronsky, D., Jones, I., Lanaghan, K., & Slovis, C. M. (2008). Supporting patient care in the emergency department with a computerized whiteboard system. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15(2), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Balka, E., Bjørn, P., & Wagner, I. (2008). Steps towards a typology for health informatics. In Proceedings of the CSCW 2008 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 515–524). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bannon, L., & Bødker, S. (1997). Constructing common information spaces. In J. A. Hughes, W. Prinz, T. Rodden, & K. Schmidt (Eds.), ECSCW1997: Proceedings of the fifth European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 81–96). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Barbot, J., & Dodier, N. (2002). Multiplicity in scientific medicine: the experience of HIV-positive patients. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 27(3), 404–440.Google Scholar
  5. Bardram, J. (2000). Temporal coordination—on time and coordination of collaborative activities at a surgical department. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 9(2), 157–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bardram, J., & Bossen, C. (2005a). Mobility work: the spatial dimension of collaboration at a hospital. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 14(2), 131–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardram, J., & Bossen, C. (2005b). A web of coordinative artefacts: Collaborative work in a hospital ward. In Proceedings of the GROUP 2005 conference on supporting group work (pp. 168–176). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bardram, J., Hansen, T., & Soegaard, M. (2006). AwareMedia: A shared interactive display supporting social, temporal, and spatial awareness in surgery. In Proceedings of the CSCW'06 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 109–118). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  9. Berg, M., & Akrich, M. (2004). Introduction—bodies on trial: performances and politics in medicine and biology. Body & Society, 10(2&3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berg, M., & Mol, A. (1998). Differences in medicine: Unraveling practices, techniques, and bodies. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bjørn, P., & Rødje, K. (2008). Triage drift: a workplace study in a pediatric emergency department. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17(4), 395–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bjørn, P., Burgoyne, S., Crompton, V., MacDonald, T., Pickering, B., & Munro, S. (2009). Boundary factors and contextual contingencies: configuring electronic templates for health care professionals. European Journal of Information Systems, 18(5), 428–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bossen, C. (2002). The parameters of common information spaces: The heterogeneity of cooperative work at a hospital ward. In Proceedings of the CSCW2002 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 176–185). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  14. Burns, C. M. (2000). Navigation strategies with ecological displays. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 52(1), 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chaboyer, W., Wallen, K., Wallis, M., & McMurray, A. M. (2009). Whiteboards: one tool to improve patient flow. The Medical Journal of Australia, 190(11), S137–S140.Google Scholar
  16. Egger, E., & Wagner, I. (1993). Negotiating temporal orders: the case of collaborative time management in a surgery clinic. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(4), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Endsley, M. R. (2006). Situation awareness. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (3rd ed., pp. 528–542). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Forsythe, D. (1999). It’s just a matter of common sense: ethnography as invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(1&2), 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. France, D. J., Levin, S., Hemphill, R., Chen, K., Rickard, D., Makowski, R., et al. (2005). Emergency physicians’ behaviour and workload in the presence of an electronic whiteboard. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 74(10), 827–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gasser, L. (1986). The integration of computing and routine work. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grudin, J., & Grinter, R. (1995). Ethnography and design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 3(1), 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1992). Collaboration and control: crisis management and multimedia technology in London underground line control rooms. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1&2), 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heath, C., Svensson, M. S., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P., & vom Lehn, D. (2002). Configuring awareness. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3&4), 317–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hertzum, M., & Simonsen, J. (2008). Positive effects of electronic patient records on three clinical activities. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 77(12), 809–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hine, C. (2007). Multi-sited ethnography as a middle range methodology for contemporary STS. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 32(6), 652–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess is social science research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Lundberg, N., & Hellioglu, H. (1999). Understanding complex coordination processes in health care. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 11, 157–182.Google Scholar
  28. Mark, G. (2002). Conventions and commitments in distributed CSCW groups. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3&4), 349–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Riley, R., Forsyth, R., Manias, E., & Iedema, R. (2007). Whiteboards: mediating professional tensions in clinical practice. Communication & Medicine, 4(2), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schmidt, K. (2002). The problem with ‘awareness’. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 11(3&4), 285–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1&2), 7–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schmidt, K., & Simone, C. (1996). Coordination mechanisms: towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW system design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 5(2&3), 155–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Scupelli, P., Xiao, Y., Fussell, S. R., Kiesler, S., & Gross, M. D. (2010). Supporting coordination in surgical suites: Physical aspects of common information spaces. In Proceedings of the CHI 2010 conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1777–1786). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  35. Strauss, A., Fagerhaugh, S., Suczek, B., & Wiener, C. (1985). Social organization of medical work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  36. Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tang, A., Lanir, J., Greenberg, S., & Fels, S. (2009). Supporting transitions in work: Informing large display application design by understanding whiteboard use. In Proceedings of the GROUP'09 conference on supporting group work (pp. 149–158). New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  38. Whittaker, S., & Schwarz, H. (1999). Meetings of the board: the impact of scheduling medium on long term group coordination in software development. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8(3), 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wilkie, A., & Michael, M. (2009). Expectation and mobilisation: enacting future users. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34(4), 502–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wong, H. J., Caesar, M., Bandali, S., Agnew, J., & Abrams, H. (2009). Electronic inpatient whiteboards: improving multidisciplinary communication and coordination of care. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 78(4), 239–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xiao, Y., Lasome, C., Moss, J., Mackenzie, C., & Faraj, S. (2001). Cognitive properties of a whiteboard: A case study in a trauma centre. In ECSCW 2001: Proceedings of the seventh European conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 259–278). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IT University of Copenhagen, Technologies in PracticeCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Roskilde University, Computer ScienceRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations