We developed a conceptual framework that describes how information transfer occurs in mission critical domains using a distributed cognition approach. According to this framework, information tools and the physical workspace comprise an “information arena”, which plays a crucial role in information transfer. Information tools and the information arena support joint work and may improve efficiency and reliability by providing visual cues to collaborators, by getting everyone on the same page, by helping collaborators focus on critical information, by facilitating attention management under time pressure, and by providing an evanescent (transient) communication space. We illustrate the concepts in this framework using an example from multidisciplinary rounds, an information transfer mechanism common in the intensive care unit, a mission critical domain. The framework can be used as a guide to further understanding of information transfer in mission critical domains and to develop information tools that facilitate and enhance discourse.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BangM.TimpkaT. (2003). Cognitive tools in medical teamwork: The spatial arrangement of patient records.Methods Int. Med, 42, 331–336.
2.
BardramJ. E.BossenC. (2005). Work rhythms and coordinative artifacts: A web of coordinative artifacts: collaborative work at a hospital ward. Proceedings of the 2005 international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work GROUP ′05, 168–176.
3.
BellottiV.RogersY. (1997). From Web press to Web pressure: multimedia representations and multimedia publishing. In (pp. 279–286).
4.
CoieraE. W.JayasuriyaR. A.HardyJ.BannanA.ThorpeM. E. (2002a). Communication loads on clinical staff in the emergency department. Med J Aust., 176, 415–418.
5.
CoieraE. W.JayasuriyaR. A.HardyJ.BannanA.ThorpeM. E. (2002b). Communication loads on clinical staff in the emergency department. Med J Aust., 176, 415–418.
6.
DonchinY.GopherD.OlinM.BadihiY.BieskyM.SprungC. L. (1995). A look into the nature and causes of human errors in the intensive care unit. Critical Care Medicine, 23, 294–300.
7.
GormanP.AshJ.LavelleM.LymanJ.DelcambreL.MaierD. (2000). Bundles in the wild: Managing information to solve problems and maintain situation awareness. Library Trends, 49, 266–289.
8.
GursesA. P.XiaoY. (2006). A systematic review of the literature on multidisciplinary rounds to design information technology. JAMIA, 13, 267–276.
9.
HarperH.HughesJ. (1991). What a Fing System! Send 'em All to the Same Place and Then Expect Us to Stop 'Em Hitting: Making Technology Work in Air Traffic Control. (Rep. No. Technical Report EPC-91-125). Cambridge, England: Rank Xerox Cambridge EuroPARC.
10.
HazlehurstB. (2003). The cockpit as multiple activity system: A computational model for understanding situated team performance. Int J of Aviation Psychology, 13, 1–22.
11.
HazlehurstB.McMullenC.GormanP.SittingD. (2003). How the ICU follows orders: care delivery as a complex activity system. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings (pp. 284–288).
12.
HeathC.LuffP. (1992). Collaboration and control: Crisis management and multimedia technology in London Underground control rooms. Computer supported cooperative work, 1, 69–94.
13.
HutchinsE. (1995). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265–288.
14.
MackayW. E. (1999). Is paper safer? The role of paper flight strips in air traffic control. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 6, 311–340.
15.
MossJ. (2005). Technological system solutions to clinical communication error. J Nurs Adm, 35, 51–53.
16.
NemethC.CookR. I.O'ConnorM.KlockP. A. (2004). Using Cognitive Artifacts to Understand Distributed Cognition. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics -Part A: Systems and Humans, 34.
17.
PattersonE. S.Watts-PerottiJ.WoodsD. D. (1999). Voice loops as coordination aids in space shuttle mission control. Computer supported cooperative work, 8, 353–371.
18.
PronovostP.BerenholtzS.DormanT.LipsettP. A.SimmondsT.HaradenC. (2003). Improving communication in the ICU using daily goals. J. Crit Care, 18, 71–75.
19.
ShortellS. M.ZimmermanJ. E.RousseauD. M.GilliesR. R.WagnerD. P.DraperE. A. (1994). The performance of intensive care units: Does good management make a difference?Medical Care, 32, 508–525.
20.
SuchmanL.TriggR. H. (1991). Understanding practice: Video as a medium for reflection and design. In GreenbaumJ.KyngM. (Eds.), Design at work: Cooperative design of computer systems (pp. 65–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
TaylorR. (1991). Information use environments. In DervinB.VoigtM.J. (Eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences (NJ: Norwood, Ablex Publishing.
22.
Van EatonE. G.HorvathK. D.LoberW. B.RossiniA. J.PellegriniC. A. (2005). A randomized, controlled trial evaluating the impact of a computerized rounding and sign-out system on continuity of care and resident work hours. J Am Coll. Surg., 200, 538–545.
23.
XiaoY. (2005). Artifacts and collaborative work in healthcare: Methodological, theoretical, and technological implications of the tangible. [Review] [49 refs]. Journal of Biomedical Informatics.38(1):26–33.
24.
XiaoY.LasomeC.MossJ.MacKenzieC. F.FarajS. (2001). Cognitive Properties of a Whiteboard: A Case Study in a Trauma Centre. In PrinzW.JarkeM.RogersY.SchmidtK.WulfV. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 259–278). Bonn, Germany: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
