Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2010 May-Jun;17(3):265-73.
doi: 10.1136/jamia.2010.004333.

Traversing the many paths of workflow research: developing a conceptual framework of workflow terminology through a systematic literature review

Kim M Unertl  1 , Laurie L Novak, Kevin B Johnson, Nancy M Lorenzi
Affiliations
Review

Traversing the many paths of workflow research: developing a conceptual framework of workflow terminology through a systematic literature review

Kim M Unertl et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 May-Jun.

Abstract

The objective of this review was to describe methods used to study and model workflow. The authors included studies set in a variety of industries using qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods. Of the 6221 matching abstracts, 127 articles were included in the final corpus. The authors collected data from each article on researcher perspective, study type, methods type, specific methods, approaches to evaluating quality of results, definition of workflow and dependent variables. Ethnographic observation and interviews were the most frequently used methods. Long study durations revealed the large time commitment required for descriptive workflow research. The most frequently discussed technique for evaluating quality of study results was triangulation. The definition of the term "workflow" and choice of methods for studying workflow varied widely across research areas and researcher perspectives. The authors developed a conceptual framework of workflow-related terminology for use in future research and present this model for use by other researchers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of systematic literature review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Publication year.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Workflow elements model (based on analysis of workflow definitions).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Blumenthal D. Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med 2010;362:382–5 - PubMed
    1. The Leapfrog Group The Leapfrog Group for Patient Safety. http://www.leapfroggroup.org/ (accessed Feb 2010).
    1. Medicine IO. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2001 - PubMed
    1. Ash JS, Bates D. Factors and forces affecting EHR system adoption: report of a 2004 ACMI discussion. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005;12:8–12 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dorr D, Bonner L, Cohen A, et al. Informatics systems to promote improved care for chronic illness: a literature review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2007;14:156–63 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types