Dataset Information

Doctor Who? A Quality Improvement Project to Assess and Improve Patients' Knowledge of Their Inpatient Physicians.

ABSTRACT: Background?Patient-physician communication is an integral part of high-quality patient care and an expectation of the Clinical Learning Environment Review program. Objective?This quality improvement initiative evaluated the impact of an educational audit and feedback intervention on the frequency of use of 2 tools-business cards and white boards-to improve provider identification. Methods?This before-after study utilized patient surveys to determine the ability of those patients to name and recognize their physicians. The before phase began in July 2013. From September 2013 to May 2014, physicians received education on business card and white board use. Results?We surveyed 378 patients. Our intervention improved white board utilization (72.2% postintervention versus 54.5% preintervention, P < .01) and slightly improved business card use (44.4% versus 33.7%, P = .07), but did not improve physician recognition. Only 20.3% (14 of 69) of patients could name their physician without use of the business card or white board. Data from all study phases showed the use of both tools improved patients' ability to name physicians (OR = 1.72 and OR = 2.12, respectively; OR = 3.68 for both; P < .05 for all), but had no effect on photograph recognition. Conclusions?Our educational intervention improved white board use, but did not result in improved patient ability to recognize physicians. Pooled data of business cards and white boards, alone or combined, improved name recognition, suggesting better use of these tools may increase identification. Future initiatives should target other barriers to usage of these types of tools.

SUBMITTER: Broderick-Forsgren K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4857528 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Doctor Who? A Quality Improvement Project to Assess and Improve Patients' Knowledge of Their Inpatient Physicians.

Broderick-Forsgren Kathleen K Hunter Wynn G WG Schulteis Ryan D RD Liu Wen-Wei WW Boggan Joel C JC Sharma Poonam P Thomas Steven S Zaas Aimee A Bae Jonathan J

Journal of graduate medical education 20160501 2

Background Patient-physician communication is an integral part of high-quality patient care and an expectation of the Clinical Learning Environment Review program. Objective This quality improvement initiative evaluated the impact of an educational audit and feedback intervention on the frequency of use of 2 tools-business cards and white boards-to improve provider identification. Methods This before-after study utilized patient surveys to determine the ability of those patients to name and reco ...[more]

PMID: 27168887

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite more than a decade of research on hospitalists and their performance, disagreement still exists regarding whether and how hospital-based physicians improve the quality of inpatient care delivery. This systematic review summarizes the findings from 65 comparative evaluations to determine whether hospitalists provide a higher quality of inpatient care relative to traditional inpatient physicians who maintain hospital privileges with concurrent outpatient practices.MethodsArticles on hospitalist performance published between January 1996 and December 2010 were identified through MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and a hand-search of reference lists, key journals and editorials. Comparative evaluations presenting original, quantitative data on processes, efficiency or clinical outcome measures of care between hospitalists, community-based physicians and traditional academic attending physicians were included (n = 65). After proposing a conceptual framework for evaluating inpatient physician performance, major findings on quality are summarized according to their percentage change, direction and statistical significance.ResultsThe majority of reviewed articles demonstrated that hospitalists are efficient providers of inpatient care on the basis of reductions in their patients' average length of stay (69%) and total hospital costs (70%); however, the clinical quality of hospitalist care appears to be comparable to that provided by their colleagues. The methodological quality of hospitalist evaluations remains a concern and has not improved over time. Persistent issues include insufficient reporting of source or sample populations (n = 30), patients lost to follow-up (n = 42) and estimates of effect or random variability (n = 35); inappropriate use of statistical tests (n = 55); and failure to adjust for established confounders (n = 37).ConclusionsFuture research should include an expanded focus on the specific structures of care that differentiate hospitalists from other inpatient physician groups as well as the development of better conceptual and statistical models that identify and measure underlying mechanisms driving provider-outcome associations in quality.

Project description:Admissions for exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) present a significant proportion of patients in the acute medical take. The British Thoracic Society (BTS) provides guidelines for time specific interventions, that should be delivered to those with an acute exacerbation of COPD through the admission care bundle. These include correct diagnosis, correct assessment of oxygenation, early administration of treatment, recognition of respiratory failure, and specialist review. Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (GHNHSFT) chose improvement in acute COPD care to be a local Commissioning for Quality and Innovation (CQUIN) scheme, which enables commissioners to reward excellence by linking a proportion of English healthcare providers' income to the achievement of local quality improvement goals. The effects of initiatives put in place by senior clinicians had waned, and further improvements were required to meet the CQUIN target. The aim of the scheme was to improve compliance with the BTS guidelines and CQUIN scheme for patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. Specific bundle paperwork to be used for all patients admitted to the Trust with an exacerbation of COPD was introduced to the Trust in June 2014, with training and education of medical staff at that time. This had improved compliance rates from 10% to 63% by September 2014. Compliance with each intervention was audited through the examination of notes of patients admitted with an exacerbation of COPD. Compliance rates had plateaued over the last three months, and so a focus group involving junior medical staff met in September 2014 to try to increase awareness further, in order to drive greater improvements in care, and meet the CQUIN requirements. Their strategies were implemented, and then compliance with the CQUIN requirements was reaudited as described above. The December 2014 audit results showed a further improvement in overall COPD care, with 73% of patients receiving all elements of the COPD admission care bundle, versus 63% in September 2014. Appropriate blood gas analysis, nebuliser administration, and respiratory review also improved. Prescription of steroids and antibiotics remained static, with 96% of patients receiving these treatments within four hours in the emergency department (ED). The only criteria which showed a decline was appropriate oxygen prescription, which dipped from 97% to 87%. After the effect of initial strategies plateaued, this quality improvement project facilitated a further increase in compliance with the CQUIN targets, both improving patient care, and safeguarding continued CQUIN funding. There is further work to be done to maintain and support further improvement in standards, and to encourage use of the COPD admission bundle paperwork for documentation purposes.

Project description:BackgroundGiven persistent gaps in coordination of care for medically complex primary care patients, efficient strategies are needed to promote better care coordination.ObjectiveThe Coordination Toolkit and Coaching project compared two toolkit-based strategies of differing intensity to improve care coordination at VA primary care clinics.DesignMulti-site, cluster-randomized QI initiative.ParticipantsTwelve VA primary care clinics matched in 6 pairs.InterventionsWe used a computer-generated allocation sequence to randomize clinics within each pair to two implementation strategies. Active control clinics received an online toolkit with evidence-based tools and QI coaching manual. Intervention clinics received the online toolkit plus weekly assistance from a distance coach for 12 months.Main measuresWe quantified patient experience of general care coordination using the Health Care System Hassles Scale (primary outcome) mailed at baseline and 12-month follow-up to serial cross-sectional patient samples. We measured the difference-in-difference (DiD) in clinic-level-predicted mean counts of hassles between coached and non-coached clinics, adjusting for clustering and patient characteristics using zero-inflated negative binomial regression and bootstrapping to obtain 95% confidence intervals. Other measures included care coordination QI projects attempted, tools adopted, and patient-reported exposure to projects.Key resultsN = 2,484 (49%) patients completed baseline surveys and 2,481 (48%) completed follow-ups. Six coached clinics versus five non-coached clinics attempted QI projects. All coached clinics versus two non-coached clinics attempted more than one project or projects that were multifaceted (i.e., involving multiple components addressing a common goal). Five coached versus three non-coached clinics used 1-2 toolkit tools. Both the coached and non-coached clinics experienced pre-post reductions in hassle counts over the study period (- 0.42 (- 0.76, - 0.08) non-coached; - 0.40 (- 0.75, - 0.06) coached). However, the DiD (0.02 (- 0.47, 0.50)) was not statistically significant; coaching did not improve patient experience of care coordination relative to the toolkit alone.ConclusionAlthough coached clinics attempted more or more complex QI projects and used more tools than non-coached clinics, coaching provided no additional benefit versus the online toolkit alone in patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03063294.

Dataset Information

Doctor Who? A Quality Improvement Project to Assess and Improve Patients' Knowledge of Their Inpatient Physicians.

Publications

Doctor Who? A Quality Improvement Project to Assess and Improve Patients' Knowledge of Their Inpatient Physicians.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets