Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Layers in Sorting Practices: Sorting out Patients with Potential Cancer

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the last couple of years, widespread use of standardized cancer pathways has been seen across a range of countries, including Denmark, to improve prognosis of cancer patients. In Denmark, standardized cancer pathways take the form of guidelines prescribing well-defined sequences where steps are planned and pre-booked in order to manage patient trajectories. They are different from typical medical guidelines because they combine both administrative and clinical prescriptions. A key issue related to the enactment of a standardized cancer pathway concerns the decision to initiate a pathway for a particular patient. Due to the limited resources within the Danish healthcare system, initiating cancer pathways for all patients with a remote suspicion of cancer would crash the system, as it would be impossible for healthcare professionals to commit to the prescribed schedules and times defined by the standardized pathways. Thus, sorting patients with symptoms of potential cancer becomes an essential activity. In this paper, we investigate the pre-diagnostic work of sorting patients with symptoms that may potentially be cancer. We identify and conceptualize the sorting practices for potential cancer patients in the pre-diagnostic work as being structured in layers of the interrelated, iterative practices of constructing, organizing, re-organizing, and merging the multiple queues within which each patient is simultaneously situated. We find that the ordering of patients in queues is guided by the formal sorting mechanism, but is handled by informal sorting mechanisms. We identify two informal sorting mechanisms with large impact on the sorting practices, namely subtle categorizing and collective remembering. These informal sorting mechanisms have implications for the design of electronic booking systems because they show that sorting patients before initiating a standardized cancer pathway is not a simple process of deciding on a predefined category that will stipulate particular dates and times. Instead, these informal sorting mechanisms show that the process of sorting patients prior to diagnosis is a collaborative process of merging multiple queues while continuously deciding whether or not a patient’s symptoms point to potential cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alby, F., & Zucchermaglio, C. (2009). Time, narratives and participation frameworks in software troubleshooting. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannon, L. J., & Kuutti, K. (1996). Shifting perspectives on organizational memory: From storage to active remembering. HICSS 1996: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 156–167).

  • Bates, D. (2002). The quality case for information technology in healthcare. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2(7), 1–9.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, M. (1997). Rationalizing medical work: Decision-support techniques and medical practices. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjerager, M., Palshof, T., Dahl, R., & Olesen, F. (2006). Praktiserende Lægers Holdninger til Udredning af Lungecancer og Organiseringen af Udredningen [General practitioners opinions on diagnostics of lung cancer and organization of diagnostics]. Ugeskrift for Laeger, 168(14), 1443–1448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjørn, P., & Balka, E. (2007). Health care categories have politics too: Unpacking the managerial agendas of electronic triage systems. ECSCW 2007: Proceedings of the Tenth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 371–390). Limerick, Ireland, September 24–28.

  • Bjørn, P., & Rødje, K. (2008). Triage drift: a workplace study in a pediatric emergency department. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17(4), 395–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaxter, M. (1978). Diagnosis as category and process: the case of alcoholism. Social Science & Medicine, 12, 9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (2000). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büscher, M., O’Neil, J., & Rooksby, J. (2009). Designing for diagnosing: introduction to the special issue on diagnostic work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 109–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forsythe, D. (1999). “It’s just a matter of common sense”: ethnography as invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerson, E. M., & Star, S. L. (1986). Analyzing due process in the workplace. ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, 4(3), 257–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartswood, M., Procter, R., Rouncefield, M., et al. (2003). ‘Repairing’ the machine: A case study of the evaluation of computer-aided detection tools in breast screening. Proceedings of ECSCW 2003 the Eighth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 375–394). Helsinki, Finland.

  • Jensen, A. R., Mainz, J., & Overgaard, J. (2002). Impact of delay on diagnosis and treatment of primary lung cancer. Acta Oncológica, 41(2), 147–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jutel, A. (2009). Sociology of diagnosis: a preliminary review. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(2), 278–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, B., & Luz, S. (2009). Achieving diagnosis by consensus. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 357–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H., & Myers, M. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luff, P., Hindmarch, J., & Heath, C. (2000). Workplace studies: Recovering work practice and informing system design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, D., O’Neill, J., Randall, D., & Rouncefield, M. (2007). How Can I Help You? Call centres, classification work and coordination. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 16, 231–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mesman, J. (2010). Diagnostic work in collaborative practices in neonatal care. In M. Büscher, D. Goodwin, & J. Mesman (Eds.), Ethnographies of diagnostic work: Dimensions of transformative practice (pp. 95–112). London: Palgrave Macmillian.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mol, A., & Elsman, M. (1996). Detecting disease and designing treatment. Duplex and the diagnosis of diseased leg vessels. Sociology of Health & Illness, 18(5), 609–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nevile, M. (2009). You are well clear of friendlies: diagnostic error and cooperative work in an Iraq war friendly fire incident. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 147–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, J. E. (1986). Narratives at work: Story telling as cooperative diagnostic activity. Proceedings of the 1986 ACM conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 62–72). Austin, Texas.

  • Paoletti, I. (2009). Communication and diagnostic work in medical emergency calls in Italy. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 229–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghupathi, W. (1997). Health care information systems. Communications of the ACM, 40(8), 80–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007a). Fieldwork for design: Theory and practice. London: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Randall, D., Sharrock, W., Lin, Y., Procter, R., & Rooksby, J. (2007b). Ontology building as practical work: Lessons from CSCW. 3rd International Conference on e-Social Science 2007. Michigan, USA.

  • Ryan, M., McIntosh, E., Dean, T., & Old, P. (2000). Trade-offs between location and waiting times in the provision of health care: the case of elective surgery on the Isle of Wight. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 22(2), 202–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, K. (1997). Of maps and scripts. The status of formal constructs in cooperative work. Group’97 ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work (pp. 138–147). Arizona, USA.

  • Schmidt, K., & Bannon, L. (1992). Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 1(1–2), 7–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, K., & Wagner, I. (2004). Ordering systems: coordinative practices and artifacts in architectural design and planning. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 13, 349–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siciliani, L., & Hurst, J. (2004). Explaining waiting-time variations for elective surgery across OECD countries. OECD Economic Studies, 38, 1–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of Silence, arenas of voice: the ecology of visible and invisible work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 8, 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A. L., Fagerhaugh, S., Suczek, B., & Wiener, C. (1985). Social organization of medical work. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, L. A. (2007). Human-machine reconfigurations. Plans and situated actions. Cambridge University Press.

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2005). Kræft i Danmark. Et Opdateret Billede af Forekomst, Dødelighed og Overlevelse [Cancer in Denmark. An updated picture of incidence, mortality and survival] (pp. 1–100). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health].

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2008a). Akut Handling og Klar Besked: Generelle Rammer for Indførelse af Pakkeforløb for Kræftpatienter [Acute action and clear message: General framework for the introduction of packages for cancer patients] (pp. 1–6). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health].

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2008b). Udkast. Generelle Retningslinjer for Henvisning fra Almen Praksis af Patienter med Mulig Cancerdiagnose [Work memo in progress. General guidelines for referral from general practise of patients with a possible cancer diagnose] (pp. 1–4). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health].

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2009a). Pakkeforløb for Lungekræft [Package pathway for lung cancer] (pp. 1–35). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health].

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2009b). Pakkeforløb for Kræft i Spiserøret, Mavemunden og Mavesækken [Package pathway for cancer in oesophagus, cardia abdomen and abdomen] (pp. 1–38). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health].

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2009c). Pakkeforløb for Kræft i Bugspytkirtlen [Package pathways for pancreatic cancer] (pp. 1–34). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The Danish National Board of Health].

  • Sundhedsstyrelsen (2009d). Pakkeforløb for Brystkræft [Package pathway for breast cancer] (pp. 1–35). Sundhedsstyrelsen [The National Board of Health].

  • Tjora, A. (2000). The technological mediation of the nursing-medical boundary. Sociology of Health & Illness, 22(6), 721–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vedsted, P., Larsen, M. B., Tørring, M. L., Andersen, R. S., Bro, F., Hansen, R. P., et al. (2008). Fra Symptom til Behandling. Viden og Strategier for Optimeret Udredning af Kræftsygdom [From symptom to treatment. Knowledge and strategies for optimized diagnostics of cancer disease]. Forskningsenheden for Almen Praksis [The Research Department for General Practice].

  • Watts-Perotti, J., & Woods, D. D. (2009). Cooperative advocacy: an approach for integrating diverse perspectives in anomaly response. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 18, 175–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, J. (1984). Dealing with medical practice variations: a proposal for action. Health Affairs, 3(2), 6–32.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our thanks to all staff at the sites of the study: The GP office and the entire staff at the Radiology Department and the Medical Department at Køge Sygehus for always being open and welcoming. Also, our thanks to former colleagues, consultant MD Ole Andersen and MD Helene Probst, for being prepared to discuss details of this paper with us at all times, and to the reviewers that provided comments that helped us clarify the points of this paper in important ways.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Naja Holten Møller & Pernille Bjørn

Authors
  1. Naja Holten Møller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pernille Bjørn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naja Holten Møller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holten Møller, N., Bjørn, P. Layers in Sorting Practices: Sorting out Patients with Potential Cancer. Comput Supported Coop Work 20, 123–153 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-011-9133-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-011-9133-3

Key words