ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Improving transparent team communication with the 'Glass Door' decal communication tool: a mixed methods analysis of family and staff perspectives.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the value and perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare professionals (HCPs) and families about the Glass Door (GD) decal team communication tool.
designQuality improvement methodology was used to design, test and implement the GD. Uptake was measured through audit. Impact was assessed through mixed methodology (survey of ICU HCPs (n=96) and semi-structured interviews of HCPs (n=10) and families (n=7)).
settingEighteen bed, closed, mixed medical-surgical-cardiac ICU in a tertiary care, university-affiliated, paediatric hospital. POPULATION: Interdisciplinary ICU HCPs and families of children admitted to the ICU.
interventionA transparent template (the GD) applied to the outside of ICU patients' doors with sections for HCPs names, physiological goals and planned tests and treatments for the day. Medical staff completed the GD in rounds (AM and PM) and any HCP caring for the patient updated it throughout the day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsAfter 3 months, 96% of 613 doors were employed of which 99% respected confidentiality. ICU HCPs reported improved understanding of the patient's plan (84% today vs 59% pre-GD, p<0.001) and sense that families were up-to-date (79% today vs 46% pre-GD, p<0.001). Based on semi-structured interviews, the GD promoted a shared understanding of the plan contributing to care continuity. The GD reassured families the team is working together and fostered family engagement in the care. Routine family experience surveys showed no change in families' sense of privacy during admission; families denied the GD's anticipated compromise of confidentiality.
conclusionsThe GD decal communication tool, visible on the patient's door, improved ICU HCPs' perceived knowledge of their patient's plan. The GD improved the shared mental model, facilitated teaching and information transfer and fostered family engagement. Challenges included knowing the rules for use and consistent application. Concerns initially raised by HCPs about confidentiality were denied by families.
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.