ArticleJoint Commission journal on quality and patient safety2021
Predictors and Outcomes of Patient Knowledge of Plan of Care in Hospital Medicine: A Quality Improvement Study.
Article in Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient understanding of plan of care is associated with positive outcomes in ambulatory settings. In hospital medicine settings, patient-physician agreement on plan of care (concordance) has been limited and difficult to improve. This study examined the impact of adding a hospitalist to interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) on physician-patient-nurse concordance and the relationship between concordance and outcomes.
methodsIDR were conducted by core teams made up of unit-based nurses, a case manager, and a pharmacist. Over time, with cohorting, hospitalists were included in IDR (hospitalist IDR) for some patients assigned to unit-based hospitalists. In developing hospitalist IDR, the researchers emphasized using an IDR checklist, including a patient communication plan. Patient-nurse-physician interviews were used to assess concordance in the domains of diagnosis, tests and procedures, and expected discharge date. Using two-hospitalist review, agreement was rated as none, partial, or complete, and a total concordance score was calculated for each patient in both IDR groups. Multivariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between concordance, IDR type, patient factors, and utilization outcomes.
resultsFor 658 patients, the mean concordance score was 11.71 out of a possible 18. There was no difference in concordance between hospitalist and core IDR groups (11.68 vs. 11.84, p = 0.7). Higher total concordance score was associated with lower lengths of stay (p < 0.001) and readmission rates (p = 0.001). Total concordance had a negative association with patient age (p = 0.04).
conclusionConcordance did not change with IDR type. Higher concordance appears to be related to positive utilization outcomes. Future studies are needed to evaluate potential interventions to improve concordance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.