Sam Brondfield, Alexander M Blum, James M Mason, Patricia S O'Sullivan
{"title":"多少才算多?利用认知负荷理论确定受训者住院咨询的最大安全次数。","authors":"Sam Brondfield, Alexander M Blum, James M Mason, Patricia S O'Sullivan","doi":"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cognitive load, specifically extraneous load (EL) reflective of distractions, may provide evidence of a lack of focus, potentially making additional work unsafe. The assessment of trainees performing inpatient consultations provides a helpful model for examining this question. The goal of this study was to provide useful information to clinical and educational leaders to optimize inpatient consultation services and rotations and mitigate potential patient safety risk.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In 2019, using the Consult Cognitive Load instrument, the authors obtained EL data from inpatient consultations performed by internal medicine fellows and psychiatry residents across 5 University of California hospitals. In 2023, the authors constructed a Wright map to compare the participants' EL data with the number of prior initial consultations performed during the shift.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 326 trainees contacted, 139 (43%) completed the EL survey items. The Wright map shows that trainees were estimated to agree that interruptions were already distracting at the first consultation of the shift. After 4 consultations, trainees were estimated to strongly agree that interruptions were distracting, and to agree that emotions, extraneous information, and technology were distracting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The authors propose a quantitative, empirically driven, mean safety limit of 4 new inpatient consultations per shift for trainees to avoid cognitive overload, thereby potentially supporting patient safety. Clinical and educational leaders can adjust this limit to fit the unique needs of their practice setting. A similar approach using cognitive load and item response theory could be used to conduct patient safety research in other domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":50929,"journal":{"name":"Academic Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1260-1266"},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees.\",\"authors\":\"Sam Brondfield, Alexander M Blum, James M Mason, Patricia S O'Sullivan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000005823\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Cognitive load, specifically extraneous load (EL) reflective of distractions, may provide evidence of a lack of focus, potentially making additional work unsafe. The assessment of trainees performing inpatient consultations provides a helpful model for examining this question. The goal of this study was to provide useful information to clinical and educational leaders to optimize inpatient consultation services and rotations and mitigate potential patient safety risk.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>In 2019, using the Consult Cognitive Load instrument, the authors obtained EL data from inpatient consultations performed by internal medicine fellows and psychiatry residents across 5 University of California hospitals. In 2023, the authors constructed a Wright map to compare the participants' EL data with the number of prior initial consultations performed during the shift.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 326 trainees contacted, 139 (43%) completed the EL survey items. The Wright map shows that trainees were estimated to agree that interruptions were already distracting at the first consultation of the shift. After 4 consultations, trainees were estimated to strongly agree that interruptions were distracting, and to agree that emotions, extraneous information, and technology were distracting.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The authors propose a quantitative, empirically driven, mean safety limit of 4 new inpatient consultations per shift for trainees to avoid cognitive overload, thereby potentially supporting patient safety. Clinical and educational leaders can adjust this limit to fit the unique needs of their practice setting. A similar approach using cognitive load and item response theory could be used to conduct patient safety research in other domains.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1260-1266\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Academic Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005823\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005823","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:认知负荷,特别是反映注意力分散的无关负荷(EL),可能会成为缺乏专注力的证据,从而使额外的工作变得不安全。对进行住院会诊的受训人员进行评估为研究这一问题提供了一个有用的模型。本研究的目的是为临床和教育领导提供有用的信息,以优化住院会诊服务和轮转,降低潜在的患者安全风险:2019年,作者使用会诊认知负荷工具,从加州大学5家医院的内科研究员和精神病学住院医师的住院会诊中获得了EL数据。2023 年,作者绘制了一张莱特图,将参与者的 EL 数据与当班期间之前进行的初步会诊次数进行比较:在联系的 326 名学员中,有 139 人(43%)完成了 EL 调查项目。赖特图显示,估计学员在当班的第一次咨询时就已同意中断会分散注意力。经过 4 次咨询后,估计受训人员非常同意干扰会分散注意力,并同意情绪、无关信息和技术会分散注意力:作者提出了一个量化的、以经验为导向的平均安全限制,即每班为受训人员提供 4 次新的住院会诊,以避免认知超负荷,从而为患者安全提供潜在支持。临床和教育领导者可以调整这一限制,以适应其实践环境的独特需求。使用认知负荷和项目反应理论的类似方法可用于在其他领域开展患者安全研究。
How Many Is Too Many? Using Cognitive Load Theory to Determine the Maximum Safe Number of Inpatient Consultations for Trainees.
Purpose: Cognitive load, specifically extraneous load (EL) reflective of distractions, may provide evidence of a lack of focus, potentially making additional work unsafe. The assessment of trainees performing inpatient consultations provides a helpful model for examining this question. The goal of this study was to provide useful information to clinical and educational leaders to optimize inpatient consultation services and rotations and mitigate potential patient safety risk.
Method: In 2019, using the Consult Cognitive Load instrument, the authors obtained EL data from inpatient consultations performed by internal medicine fellows and psychiatry residents across 5 University of California hospitals. In 2023, the authors constructed a Wright map to compare the participants' EL data with the number of prior initial consultations performed during the shift.
Results: Of 326 trainees contacted, 139 (43%) completed the EL survey items. The Wright map shows that trainees were estimated to agree that interruptions were already distracting at the first consultation of the shift. After 4 consultations, trainees were estimated to strongly agree that interruptions were distracting, and to agree that emotions, extraneous information, and technology were distracting.
Conclusions: The authors propose a quantitative, empirically driven, mean safety limit of 4 new inpatient consultations per shift for trainees to avoid cognitive overload, thereby potentially supporting patient safety. Clinical and educational leaders can adjust this limit to fit the unique needs of their practice setting. A similar approach using cognitive load and item response theory could be used to conduct patient safety research in other domains.
期刊介绍:
Academic Medicine, the official peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, acts as an international forum for exchanging ideas, information, and strategies to address the significant challenges in academic medicine. The journal covers areas such as research, education, clinical care, community collaboration, and leadership, with a commitment to serving the public interest.