Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30397660›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2018

Improving communication of patient issues on transfer out of intensive care.

Jessica Caroline Roberts, Lizzie Johnston-Walker, Kim Parker, Katherine Townend, James Bickley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jessica Caroline RobertsDepartment of Intensive Care, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Lizzie Johnston-WalkerDepartment of Intensive Care, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Kim ParkerDepartment of Intensive Care, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand.
Katherine TownendDepartment of Intensive Care, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand.
James BickleyDepartment of Intensive Care, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The written medical handover document is frequently poor in quality and highly variable which raises concerns about patient safety. Intensive care unit (ICU) patients have complex medical and social issues which increases the risk of errors during ongoing hospital treatment. Our project team of four doctors and two nurses aimed to improve the documentation of patient problems as they leave the ICU. A literature review and process mapping of both medical and nursing transfer documentation helped in understanding the current process. Current problems (CP) were defined as any patient issues which require ongoing thought, management or follow-up. Our progress was tracked using a measure of the number of CPs listed in the free-text field titled 'Current Problems' in 50 medical transfer documents. This was graphed on a control chart showing a process in statistical control. Means and control limits were recalculated whenever a process shift occurred. There was no relationship between the number of CPs listed and length of ICU stay, age of patient, or severity of illness on presentation (Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation II score). An inter-relationship graph identified the key drivers which were amenable to change: (1) the doctors completing the clinical summary at the time of discharge did not have all the information readily available to them and (2) the doctors were uncertain of the types of problem which should be communicated. Improvements were designed and trialled using Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to address these two key drivers. At baseline, the average number of CPs per patient was 1.8. After implementation of a paper problem list at the patient bedside, with supporting education, the average increased to 2.7. This was further improved by the addition of a checklist of common patient problems. This increased the average to 3.85. These improvements were permanently implemented and ongoing audits have shown sustained improvement using statistical process control methods.

Indexed as

communicationcontrol charts/run chartscritical carehand-offquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID30397660
PMCPMC6203008

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.