Advertisement

The Cost of Improved Overview: An Analysis of the Use of Electronic Whiteboards in Emergency Departments

  • Morten Hertzum
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10514)

Abstract

Forming and maintaining an overview of an information space is key to competent action in many situations and often supported by overview displays. We investigate the cost of the improved overview associated with the introduction of electronic whiteboards in four emergency departments (EDs). In such a dynamic environment the work that goes into keeping the whiteboard current is, we contend, an indicator of the cost of maintaining an overview. On the basis of log data for the period 2012–2014 we find that the ED clinicians make an average of 1.91 whiteboard changes per minute to keep the whiteboard current. Performing these changes takes an estimated 6647 h a year in each ED. While the whiteboard is well-like and has improved the clinicians’ overview, our cost-of-overview estimation shows that it consumes substantial staff resources. This reflects the value the clinicians assign to having an overview but also reveals the amount of resources removed from other activities to maintain this overview.

Keywords

Cost of use Overview formation Electronic whiteboard Healthcare 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is part of the Clinical Communication project, which is a research and development collaboration between Roskilde University, University of Copenhagen, Imatis, and Region Zealand. The interview quote at the end of Sect. 1 is from an interview conducted in collaboration with Jesper Simonsen from Roskilde University. Special thanks are due to Rasmus Rasmussen at Imatis for making the anonymized version of the log data.

References

  1. 1.
    Hornbæk, K., Hertzum, M.: The notion of overview in information visualization. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 69(7&8), 509–525 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J.D., Shneiderman, B. (eds.): Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shneiderman, B.: The eyes have it: a task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Conference on Visual Languages, pp. 336–343. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fitzgerald, G., Jelinek, G.A., Scott, D., Gerdtz, M.F.: Emergency department triage revisited. Emerg. Med. J. 27(2), 86–92 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moskop, J.C., Sklar, D.P., Geiderman, J.M., Schears, R.M., Bookman, K.J.: Emergency department crowding, part 1 - concept, causes, and moral consequences. Ann. Emerg. Med. 53(5), 605–611 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hoot, N.R., Aronsky, D.: Systematic review of emergency department crowding: causes, effects, and solutions. Ann. Emerg. Med. 52(2), 126–136 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hertzum, M., Simonsen, J.: Visual overview, oral detail: the use of an emergency-department whiteboard. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 82, 21–30 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rasmussen, R., Fleron, B., Hertzum, M., Simonsen, J.: Balancing tradition and transcendence in the implementation of emergency-department electronic whiteboards. In: Molka-Danielsen, J., Nicolaisen, H.W., Persson, J.S. (eds.) Selected Papers of the Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia 2010, pp. 73–87. Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rasmussen, R., Hertzum, M.: Visualizing the application of filters: a comparison of blocking, blurring, and colour-coding whiteboard information. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 71(10), 946–957 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hertzum, M.: Electronic emergency-department whiteboards: a study of clinicians’ expectations and experiences. Int. J. Med. Inform. 80(9), 618–630 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hertzum, M., Simonsen, J.: Effects of electronic emergency-department whiteboards on clinicians’ time distribution and mental workload. Health Inform. J. 22(1), 3–20 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spence, R.: Information Visualization: Design for Interaction, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, Harlow (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bossen, C., Jensen, L.G.: How physicians ‘achieve overview’: a case-based study in a hospital ward. In: Proceedings of the CSCW2014 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, pp. 257–268. ACM Press, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D.: Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 16(4), 409–421 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell, D.M., Stefik, M.J., Pirolli, P., Card, S.K.: The cost structure of sensemaking. In: Proceedings of the INTERCHI1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 269–276. ACM Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rasmussen, R., Hertzum, M.: Consider the details: a study of the reading distance and revision time of electronic over dry-erase whiteboards. In: Proceedings of the Danish HCI Research Symposium, DHRS2012, pp. 24–27. University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, DK (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scupelli, P., Xiao, Y., Fussell, S.R., Kiesler, S., Gross, M.D.: 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. ACM Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Whittaker, S., Schwarz, H.: Meetings of the board: the impact of scheduling medium on long term group coordination in software development. Comput. Support. Coop. Work 8(3), 175–205 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations