PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15754883

Workplace presenteeism: How behavioral professionals can make a difference.

David Whitehouse
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.

Explore related subjects

EfficiencyEfficiency, OrganizationalHumansMental DisordersMental Health ServicesOccupational Health ServicesWorkplaceJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David Whitehouse. 2005. Workplace presenteeism: How behavioral professionals can make a difference.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15754883/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Liquid-based cytology can improve efficiency of cervical smear readers: evidence from timing surveys in two NHS cytology laboratories.

OBJECTIVE: Cervical screening programmes in England and Wales were advised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in 2003 to adopt liquid-based cytology (LBC) in place of conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) cytology to facilitate laboratory efficiency. Pilot evaluations in England and Scotland monitored daily or weekly workloads of smear readers and concluded that LBC could increase hourly throughput rates. This study, instead, used timing surveys to determine screening rates. METHODS: Two National Health Service cytology laboratories in Manchester and Stockport were partially converted to the LBC ThinPrep process for a cervical screening trial. Three 1-week timing surveys were conducted over 7 months. The surveys covered all LBC-trained staff. The first survey in Manchester also covered staff undertaking conventional Pap screening. The smear readers used timers to record time taken for examining and reporting each slide. RESULTS: In Manchester, in the first survey, nearly 1 minute per slide was saved by the LBC method during primary microscopy. In both laboratories, the mean microscopy time for primary screening of LBC slides was reduced by almost 1 minute between the first and second surveys. There was no difference between the second and third surveys. Microscopy by cytopathologists was also 1 minute per slide quicker with LBC than conventional Pap. The LBC inadequate rates for both laboratories were <2.0%. Organizational factors impacted on the hourly LBC primary screening rates in the laboratories, the rate for Stockport being higher than the rates in the pilot evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: The timing surveys confirm that the LBC ThinPrep technology can improve laboratory efficiency. However, decision-makers should also consider the overall costs and benefits of introducing the technology in screening programmes, including the capital investment and workforce implications.

Efficiency↗
PubMed2005

Multi-institutional analysis of computed and direct radiography: part I. Technologist productivity.

PURPOSE: To assess whether it is feasible to measure and compare work-flow times across institutional variations, and to apply such a comparison to technologist productivity in the performance of general radiographic examinations with computed radiography (CR) and direct radiography (DR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study received internal review board exemption. Participants were informed about the study and willingly participated. Observational time-motion analyses were performed at four sites at which CR and DR are used concurrently. The time taken by the technologist for patient preparation, positioning, exposure, and postacquisition processing, and for the examination as a whole, was recorded. Data collected reflect unique elements at each clinical center, and no standardized work flow was imposed. Work-flow performance times were correlated with each site profile. Preliminary statistical analyses included examination of distributions of original and combined variables. Descriptive statistics were presented as means or frequencies, depending on whether the data were continuous or categorical. Continuous variables were compared by using the Student t test. Timing differences between CR and DR for each clinical center were compared, and all data were analyzed by using commercially available statistical software. RESULTS: For all four study sites, statistically significant total examination time differences were observed when comparing CR and DR (P < .001). The single step in the examination that was found to be the largest contributor to time difference was postacquisition processing, which accounted for 30%-100% of the total time difference between the two technologies. The most time-efficient sites were those that had in-room postacquisition processing capability and fully functional integration with the radiology information system. Investigators at two study sites compared times for two-view chest radiography only, and those at the other two study sites compared times for multiview general radiographic examinations. Only the results of two-view comparisons were reported for each site. CONCLUSION: Overall technologist time was significantly shorter when performing tasks associated with DR than when performing comparable tasks associated with CR, a difference that appears to result largely from technology configuration, staffing, and patient management.

Efficiency↗