OBJECTIVE: This study compares results and illustrates trade-offs between work-sampling and time-and-motion methodologies. DATA SOURCES: Data are from time-and-motion measurements of a sample of medical residents in two large urban hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: The study contrasts the precision of work-sampling and time-and-motion techniques using data actually collected using the time-and-motion approach. That data set was used to generate a simulated set of work-sampling data points. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Trained observers followed residents during their 24-hour day and recorded the start and end time of each activity performed by the resident. The activities were coded and then grouped into ten major categories. Work-sampling data were derived from the raw time-and-motion data for hourly, half-hourly, and quarter-hourly observations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The actual time spent on different tasks as assessed by the time-and-motion analysis differed from the percent of time projected by work-sampling. The work-sampling results differed by 20 percent or more of the estimated value for eight of the ten activities. As expected, the standard deviation decreases as work-sampling observations become more frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that the work-sampling approach, as commonly employed, may not provide an acceptably precise approximation of the result that would be obtained by time-and-motion observations.
OBJECTIVE: This study compares results and illustrates trade-offs between work-sampling and time-and-motion methodologies. DATA SOURCES: Data are from time-and-motion measurements of a sample of medical residents in two large urban hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: The study contrasts the precision of work-sampling and time-and-motion techniques using data actually collected using the time-and-motion approach. That data set was used to generate a simulated set of work-sampling data points. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Trained observers followed residents during their 24-hour day and recorded the start and end time of each activity performed by the resident. The activities were coded and then grouped into ten major categories. Work-sampling data were derived from the raw time-and-motion data for hourly, half-hourly, and quarter-hourly observations. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The actual time spent on different tasks as assessed by the time-and-motion analysis differed from the percent of time projected by work-sampling. The work-sampling results differed by 20 percent or more of the estimated value for eight of the ten activities. As expected, the standard deviation decreases as work-sampling observations become more frequent. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that the work-sampling approach, as commonly employed, may not provide an acceptably precise approximation of the result that would be obtained by time-and-motion observations.
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: William Hollingworth; Emily Beth Devine; Ryan N Hansen; Nathan M Lawless; Bryan A Comstock; Jennifer L Wilson-Norton; Kathleen L Tharp; Sean D Sullivan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Melissa A Christino; Andrew P Matson; Staci A Fischer; Steven E Reinert; Christopher W Digiovanni; Paul D Fadale Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2013-12
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Tosha B Wetterneck; Bashar Alyousef; Roger L Brown; Randi S Cartmill; Kerry McGuire; Peter L T Hoonakker; Jason Slagle; Kara S Van Roy; James M Walker; Matthew B Weinger; Anping Xie; Kenneth E Wood Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 4.046