2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/158848
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Validation of a Methodology to Analyze Collaborative Workflow
Abstract:
Validation of a Methodology to Analyze Collaborative Workflow
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2010
Author:Cady, Rhonda, M.S., R.N.
P.I. Institution Name:University of Minnesota
Title:Health Informatics
Contact Address:420 Delaware Ave SE, MMC 609, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA
Contact Telephone:952-412-2108
Co-Authors:R.G. Cady, Institute of Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; S.M. Finkelstein, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MS;
Purpose: The prevailing method for identifying work tasks prior to time-motion study is brainstorming by experts, followed by a short observation to ensure the validity of the tasks. While this method generates valid tasks, it can be limited to linear tasks performed by a single person. The purpose of this qualitative study is to compare the work tasks generated by a 'non-expert' using cognitive ethnography, with the tasks identified by 'an expert' using the prevailing method. Theoretical framework: Cognitive ethnography is the primary method for studying distributed cognition. The theory of distributed cognition focuses on collaborative work processes. Components include coordination of activity, interactions between people and artifacts, changes in representational media, information flow and problem solving. In this model, artifacts are physical components added to work processes to maintain, display or operate on information and range from paper to sophisticated technology. Subjects: Research nurses working in a lung transplant home monitoring program at the University of Minnesota. Methods: Cognitive ethnography, consisting of eight hours direct observation, semi-structured interviews, audio recording and field notes. Directed content analysis using the theoretical components of distributed cognition identified the work categories and tasks of the research nurses. Results: 12 categories containing 59 tasks emerged from the data. 10 categories mapped to one or more 'expert' defined categories and all tasks mapped to one or more of the 'expert' tasks. 18 of the 'expert' tasks were not identified using cognitive ethnography. 16 are attributed to a short data collection period and two tasks (filing and gathering paperwork) were observed but not extracted during data analysis. Conclusions: Workflow tasks identified using cognitive ethnography aligns closely with tasks identified using the prevailing 'expert' method. Workflow categories generated by cognitive ethnography differ from the 'expert' method and illustrate the distributed and collaborative work processes of the research nurse. Cognitive ethnography yields results similar to the 'expert' method but generates categories that provide a richer description of collaborative health care work.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleValidation of a Methodology to Analyze Collaborative Workflowen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/158848-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Validation of a Methodology to Analyze Collaborative Workflow</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2010</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Cady, Rhonda, M.S., R.N.</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Minnesota</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Health Informatics</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">420 Delaware Ave SE, MMC 609, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">952-412-2108</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">cadyx010@umn.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">R.G. Cady, Institute of Health Informatics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; S.M. Finkelstein, Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MS;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Purpose: The prevailing method for identifying work tasks prior to time-motion study is brainstorming by experts, followed by a short observation to ensure the validity of the tasks. While this method generates valid tasks, it can be limited to linear tasks performed by a single person. The purpose of this qualitative study is to compare the work tasks generated by a 'non-expert' using cognitive ethnography, with the tasks identified by 'an expert' using the prevailing method. Theoretical framework: Cognitive ethnography is the primary method for studying distributed cognition. The theory of distributed cognition focuses on collaborative work processes. Components include coordination of activity, interactions between people and artifacts, changes in representational media, information flow and problem solving. In this model, artifacts are physical components added to work processes to maintain, display or operate on information and range from paper to sophisticated technology. Subjects: Research nurses working in a lung transplant home monitoring program at the University of Minnesota. Methods: Cognitive ethnography, consisting of eight hours direct observation, semi-structured interviews, audio recording and field notes. Directed content analysis using the theoretical components of distributed cognition identified the work categories and tasks of the research nurses. Results: 12 categories containing 59 tasks emerged from the data. 10 categories mapped to one or more 'expert' defined categories and all tasks mapped to one or more of the 'expert' tasks. 18 of the 'expert' tasks were not identified using cognitive ethnography. 16 are attributed to a short data collection period and two tasks (filing and gathering paperwork) were observed but not extracted during data analysis. Conclusions: Workflow tasks identified using cognitive ethnography aligns closely with tasks identified using the prevailing 'expert' method. Workflow categories generated by cognitive ethnography differ from the 'expert' method and illustrate the distributed and collaborative work processes of the research nurse. Cognitive ethnography yields results similar to the 'expert' method but generates categories that provide a richer description of collaborative health care work.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T21:27:21Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T21:27:21Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.