OBJECTIVES: To compare self-reported and observational work sampling techniques when applied to ward-based nurses. METHODS: A self-reported work sampling study was undertaken with nine registered nurses in an Australian teaching hospital over 8.5 weeks, followed by an observational work sampling study conducted over 4.5 weeks. Both studies used a random reminder method and a multidimensional work task classification. Field notes were also recorded and analysed. RESULTS: 3910 data points were collected, 667 during the self-report study and 3243 in the observational study. The two techniques yielded significant differences in work patterns of registered nurses. The observational study showed that compared with the self-reported study, patient care (40% versus 33%, P <0.000) and ward-related activities (7% versus 3%; P <0.001) were recorded significantly more frequently, and documentation less frequently (8% versus 19%; P <0.000). Both the techniques generated similar proportions of time spent in breaks (12%), medication tasks (13%) and clinical discussion (15%). The self-report technique was poorly accepted by nursing staff. The observational technique was well accepted and data collection was more effcient. CONCLUSIONS: The self-report work sampling technique is not a reliable method for obtaining an accurate reflection of the work tasks of ward-based nurses. The observational technique was preferred by nurses, and despite concern regarding a potential Hawthorne effect, this was not substantiated.
OBJECTIVES: To compare self-reported and observational work sampling techniques when applied to ward-based nurses. METHODS: A self-reported work sampling study was undertaken with nine registered nurses in an Australian teaching hospital over 8.5 weeks, followed by an observational work sampling study conducted over 4.5 weeks. Both studies used a random reminder method and a multidimensional work task classification. Field notes were also recorded and analysed. RESULTS: 3910 data points were collected, 667 during the self-report study and 3243 in the observational study. The two techniques yielded significant differences in work patterns of registered nurses. The observational study showed that compared with the self-reported study, patient care (40% versus 33%, P <0.000) and ward-related activities (7% versus 3%; P <0.001) were recorded significantly more frequently, and documentation less frequently (8% versus 19%; P <0.000). Both the techniques generated similar proportions of time spent in breaks (12%), medication tasks (13%) and clinical discussion (15%). The self-report technique was poorly accepted by nursing staff. The observational technique was well accepted and data collection was more effcient. CONCLUSIONS: The self-report work sampling technique is not a reliable method for obtaining an accurate reflection of the work tasks of ward-based nurses. The observational technique was preferred by nurses, and despite concern regarding a potential Hawthorne effect, this was not substantiated.
Authors: Kai Zheng; Hilary M Haftel; Ronald B Hirschl; Michael O'Reilly; David A Hanauer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Johanna I Westbrook; Jeffrey Braithwaite; Andrew Georgiou; Amanda Ampt; Nerida Creswick; Enrico Coiera; Rick Iedema Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Feng-Chiao Su; Melissa C Friesen; Aleksandr B Stefaniak; Paul K Henneberger; Ryan F LeBouf; Marcia L Stanton; Xiaoming Liang; Michael Humann; M Abbas Virji Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 2.179
Authors: Lara J Akinbami; Sean D Sullivan; Jonathan D Campbell; Robert W Grundmeier; Tina V Hartert; Todd A Lee; Robert A Smith Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Lauren Block; Robert Habicht; Albert W Wu; Sanjay V Desai; Kevin Wang; Kathryn Novello Silva; Timothy Niessen; Nora Oliver; Leonard Feldman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 5.128