This study describes the concept of affordance-based procedure and its implementation in a triage station in a hospital emergency department. Rather than seeking to increase operators’ adherence to procedures, an affordance-based procedure (1) aims to induce task steps using affordances that also (2) support degrees of freedom for action. The design of this procedure was guided by the application of an extended version of cognitive work analysis, named “heuristic cognitive work analysis.” This design process produced a new procedural document: a reception card. Ten months after its implementation, a qualitative evaluation with 10 triage nurses shows that the reception card is viewed as supporting coordination between the different nurses’ tasks and providing an external memory to cope with frequent interruptions during high patient inflow, even though the document is used for convenience and with unexpected and partial uses of its items. The document assessed also afforded emerging benefits, that is, acceleration of ambulance release, higher level of confidentiality, assistance for staff hand-overs. Finally, novice triage nurses are particularly sensitive to the benefits brought by this affordance-based procedure.
AlbrechtsenH.AndersenH. H.BødkerS.PejtersenA. M. (2001). Affordances in activity theory and cognitive systems engineering. Rapport Technique Riso.
2.
BakdashJ. Z.DrewsF. A. (2012). Using knowledge in the world to improve patient safety: Designing affordances in health care equipment to specify a sequential “checklist”. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 22(1), 7–20.doi:10.1002/hfm.20289
3.
BalkaE. (2010). Ghost charts and shadow records: Implication for system design. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 160(Pt 1), 686–690.20841774
4.
BeachK. (1993). Becoming a bartender: The role of external memory cues in a work-directed educational activity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7(3), 191–204.doi:10.1002/acp.2350070304
5.
BernardC.MorineauT.ThierryS. (2020). The degrees of freedom problem: How to guide trajectories with the dynamic safety model to assist activity in loosely coupled work systems. Safety Science, 127(suppl_1), 104712.doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104712
6.
BlackstadH. C.HovdenJ.RosnessR. (2010). Reverse invention: An inductive bottom-up strategy for safety rule development: A case study of safety rule modifications in the Norwegian railway system. Safety Science, 48, 382–394.
7.
BraithwaiteJ.WearsR. L.HollnagelE. (2015). Resilient health care: Turning patient safety on its head. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 27(5), 418–420.doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzv06326294709
8.
CarimG. C.SaurinT. A.HavingaJ.RaeA.DekkerS. W. A.HenriqsonÉ. (2016). Using a procedure doesn’t mean following it: A cognitive systems approach to how a cockpit manages emergencies. Safety Science, 89(3), 147–157.doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2016.06.008
9.
DeBoerS.SeaverM.BroselowJ. (2005). Color coding to reduce errors: The broselow–luten system streamlines pediatric emergency treatment. AJN The American Journal of Nursing, 105, 68–71.
10.
DekkerS. (2005). Ten questions about human error: A new view of human factors and system safety. Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
DrewsF. A. (2013). Adherence engineering: A new approach to increasing adherence to protocols. Ergonomics in Design, 21, 19–25.
12.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception: Classic edition. Psychology Press.
13.
GroteG.WeichbrodtJ. C.GünterH.Zala-MezöE.KünzleB. (2009). Coordination in high-risk organizations: The need for flexible routines. Cognition, Technology & Work, 11(1), 17–27.doi:10.1007/s10111-008-0119-y
14.
HaleA.BorysD. (2013). Working to rule, or working safely? Part 1: A state of the art review. Safety Science, 55(1), 207–221.doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.011
15.
HinsonJ. S.MartinezD. A.CabralS.GeorgeK.WhalenM.HansotiB.LevinS. (2019). Triage performance in emergency medicine: A systematic review. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 74(1), 140–152.doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.09.02230470513
16.
HollnagelE. (2014). Safety-I and safety-II: The past and future of safety management. CRC press.
17.
Huddy. (2017). Emergency department design. A practical guide to planning for the future (2nd ed.). ACEP.
18.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. MIT press.
19.
JohnsonK. D.MotavalliM.GrayD.KuehnC. (2014). Causes and occurrences of interruptions during ED triage. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 40(5), 434–439.doi:10.1016/j.jen.2013.06.01924269063
20.
LeplatJ.HocJ. M. (1983). Tâche et activité dans l’analyse des situations. Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive, 3, 49–63.
21.
LockeE. A. (1982). The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: An evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 14–24.doi:10.5465/amr.1982.4285427
22.
MillerA.AswaniA.ZhouM.WeingerM.SlagleJ.FranceD. (2019). Using telephone call rates and nurse-to-patient ratios as measures of resilient performance under high patient flow conditions. Cognition, Technology & Work, 21(2), 225–236.doi:10.1007/s10111-018-0498-7
23.
MorineauT.ChapelainP.QuinioP. (2016). Task management skills and their deficiencies during care delivery in simulated medical emergency situation: A classification. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, 34, 42–50.doi:10.1016/j.iccn.2015.11.00126764210
24.
MorineauT.FlachJ. M. (2019). The heuristic version of cognitive work analysis: A first application to medical emergency situations. Applied Ergonomics, 79, 98–106.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2018.07.00830031520
25.
NormanD. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.doi:10.1145/301153.301168
26.
RasmussenJ. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic Society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2-3), 183–213.doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
27.
RasmussenJ. (2003). The role of error in organizing behaviour. 1990. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(5), 377–383.doi:10.1136/qhc.12.5.37714532371
28.
RebbittD.EricksonJ. A. (2016). Hypercompliance: Too much of a good thing?Professional Safety, 61, 31–37.
29.
SeferdjeliL.TerraneoF. (2015). Comprendre le travail de soins l’hôpital. Recherche en Soins Infirmiers, 120, 6–22.
30.
SuchmanL. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press.
31.
SuchmanL. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations: Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.
32.
VicenteK. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
33.
VicenteK. J.RasmussenJ. (1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22(4), 589–606.doi:10.1109/21.156574
34.
WachsP.SaurinT. A. (2018). Modelling interactions between procedures and resilience skills. Applied Ergonomics, 68, 328–337.doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2017.12.01329409652
35.
WearsR. L.PerryS. J. (2002). Human factors and ergonomics in the emergency department. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40(2), 206–212.doi:10.1067/mem.2002.12490012140500
36.
WoodsD. D.HollnagelE. (2006). Joint cognitive systems: Patterns in cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press.
37.
WrightP. C.FieldsR. E.HarrisonM. D. (1996). Distributed information resources: A new approach to interaction modeling[Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the ECCE-8, the 8th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Roquencourt, France.
38.
YangK. K.LamS. S. W.LowJ. M. W.OngM. E. H. (2016). Managing emergency department crowding through improved triaging and resource allocation. Operations Research for Health Care, 10(3), 13–22.doi:10.1016/j.orhc.2016.05.001
