The objective of this study was to describe a panel process of selecting interventions to reduce unnecessary interruptions in clinical nursing. Interruptions in nursing may jeopardise patient safety, disorganise planning, and lead to ineffective working procedures. The Delphi panel process may be useful to create consensus on interventions to reduce interruptions. Using the Delphi method, a structured group-based decision-making tool, a panel of 14 nurses agreed on interventions to reduce interruptions. The results showed that a consensus on reducing interruptions was reached in four focus areas: expectations, physical framework, work procedures, and medication room procedures. The panel process was chosen as a means to involve nursing staff to create consensus and ownership about interventions. Our conclusions are that the Delphi panel process was a feasible method of selecting multi-factorial interventions to reduce interruptions. The panel process contributed to dialogue, staff involvement, and competency development. Further prospective studies are needed to explore whether these multi-factorial interventions can reduce unnecessary interruptions and improve patient safety.
BironADLoiselleCGLavoie-TremblayM. Work interruptions and their contribution to medication administration errors: an evidence review. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs2009; 6(2): 70–86.
WestbrookJIWoodsARobMI. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med2010; 170(8): 683–690.
TuckerALSpearSJ. Operational failures and interruptions in hospital nursing. Health Serv Res2006; 41(3 Pt 1): 643–662.
6.
BrixeyJJRobinsonDJTurleyJP. The roles of MDs and RNs as initiators and recipients of interruptions in workflow. Int J Med Inform2010; 79(6): e109–e115.
7.
KrecklerSCatchpoleKBottomleyM. Interruptions during drug rounds: an observational study. Br J Nurs2008; 17(21): 1326–1330.
8.
SpeierCValacichJSVesseyI. The influence of task interruption on individual decision making: an information overload perspective. Decision Sci1999; 30(2): 337–360.
9.
VerweijLSmeulersMMaaskantJM. Quiet please! Drug round tabards: are they effective and accepted? A mixed method study. J Nurs Scholarsh2014; 46(5): 340–348.
10.
BeyeaSC. Noise: a distraction, interruption, and safety hazard. AORN J2007; 86(2): 281–285.
11.
LiebowitzJ. Interruption management: a review and implications for IT professionals. IT Professional2010; 13(2): 44–48.
12.
BowersJBLauringCJacobsonN. How nurses manage time and work in long-term care. J Adv Nurs2001; 33(4): 484–491.
13.
TomiettoMSartorAMazzocoliE. Paradoxical effects of a hospital-based, multi-intervention programme aimed at reducing medication round interruptions. J Nurs Manag2012; 20(3): 335–343.
14.
YoderMSchadewaldD. The effect of a safe zone on nurse distractions, interruptions, and medication administration errors. Western J Nurs Res2012; 34(8): 1068–1069.
15.
King’s College, National Nursing Research Unit. Interruption to nurses during medication administration: are there implications for the quality of patient care?Policy +2010; 22: 1–2.
16.
Kebinger J. Current research in workplace interruption management 2005. Paper Comp171.
17.
HudsonSFogartyJAtkesonC. Predicting human interruptibility with sensors: a Wizard of Oz feasibility study. CHI2003, pp. 257–264.
18.
MarkKGonzalesVMHarrisJ. No task left behind? Examining the nature of fragmented work. CHI2005, pp. 321–330.
19.
SpiraJBFeintuchJB. The cost of not paying attention: how interruptions impact knowledge worker productivity, New York: Basex, 2005.
20.
JettQRGeorgeJM. Work interrupted: a closer look at the role of interruptions in organizational life. Acad Manage Rev2003; 28(3): 494–507.
AtkinsonRCShiffringRMHuman memory: a proposed system and its control processes. In: SpenceKWSpenceJT (eds). The psychology of learning and motivation, New York: Academic Press, 1968, pp. 89–195.
23.
PapeTMGuerraDMMuzquizM. Innovative approaches to reducing nurses’ distractions during medication administration. J Contin Educ Nurs2005; 36(3): 108–116. quiz 41–42.
24.
RelihanEO’BrienVO’HaraS. The impact of a set of interventions to reduce interruptions and distractions to nurses during medication administration. Qual Saf Health Care2010; 19(5): e52.
25.
McGillis HallLPedersenCFairleyL. Losing the moment: understanding interruptions to nurses’ work. J Nurs Adm2010; 40(4): 169–176.
26.
HassonFKeeneySMcKennaH. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs2000; 32(4): 1008–1015.
27.
ClibbensNWaltersSBairdW. Delphi research: issues raised by a pilot study. Nurse Res2012; 19(2): 37–44.
28.
KeeneySHassonFMcKennaHP. A critical review of the Delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud2001; 38(2): 195–200.
29.
HsuC-CSandfordBA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess, Res Eval2007; 12(10): 1–8.
30.
JonesJHunterD. Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ1995; 311(7001): 376–380.
31.
NormanG. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘laws’ of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract2010; 15(5): 625–632.
32.
McKennaHP. The Delphi technique: a worthwhile research approach for nursing?J Adv Nurs1994; 19(6): 1221–1225.
33.
AjzenIFrom intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: KuhlJBeckmannJ (eds). Action-control: from cognition to behavior, Heidelberg: Springer, 1985, pp. 11–39.
34.
DunnR. Understanding the Dunn and Dunn learning styles model and the need for individual diagnosis and prescription. J Read Writ Learn Disabil Int1990; 6(3): 223–247.
35.
BeattieEMackway-JonesK. A Delphi study to identify performance indicators for emergency medicine. Emerg Med J2004; 21(1): 47–50.
36.
JeffsLLawMPStrausS. Defining quality outcomes for complex-care patients transitioning across the continuum using a structured panel process. BMJ Qual Saf2013; 22(12): 1014–1024.
37.
ReavyKTavernierS. Nurses reclaiming ownership of their practice: implementation of an evidence-based practice model and process. J Contin Educ Nurs2008; 39(4): 166–172.
