M Moss1, T K Trow, N Clardy. 1. Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA. marc_moss@emory.org
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the type of paging system causes significant differences in the response time by physicians to their pages in an ICU setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study performed in the ICU of two university-affiliated hospitals. All pages were classified by several different variables, including the type of paging system: direct paging if a nurse or hospital operator could directly place the page, or indirect paging if a nurse or hospital operator was required to contact the physician's office or a private answering service who would then independently contact the physician. The main outcome measure was physicians' response time, in minutes, to pages originating from the ICU. RESULTS: During a 100-day period, 402 pages were sent and answered by 166 different physicians (87 attending physicians and 79 housestaff/physician assistants). The median response time for all pages was 3 min with a 25 to 75% quartile of 1 to 8 min. Twenty-five percent of the pages placed through an indirect system were associated with a response time of >/= 29 min. In a multivariate model with the response time dichotomized at >/= 15 min ("slow") or < 15 min ("adequate"), pages placed through an indirect system were answered significantly more slowly than pages placed through a direct system (p < 0.001; odds ratio, 4.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.05 to 9.29). Pages answered in an adequate amount of time were also associated with a significantly higher degree of overall nursing satisfaction with the care delivered by the physician in response to the specific page when compared with pages answered in a "slow" manner (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who use an indirect paging system are significantly slower in their response to ICU pages when compared with physicians who utilize a direct paging system. These results may lead to improvements in paging systems used by physicians who care for patients in an ICU setting.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the type of paging system causes significant differences in the response time by physicians to their pages in an ICU setting. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study performed in the ICU of two university-affiliated hospitals. All pages were classified by several different variables, including the type of paging system: direct paging if a nurse or hospital operator could directly place the page, or indirect paging if a nurse or hospital operator was required to contact the physician's office or a private answering service who would then independently contact the physician. The main outcome measure was physicians' response time, in minutes, to pages originating from the ICU. RESULTS: During a 100-day period, 402 pages were sent and answered by 166 different physicians (87 attending physicians and 79 housestaff/physician assistants). The median response time for all pages was 3 min with a 25 to 75% quartile of 1 to 8 min. Twenty-five percent of the pages placed through an indirect system were associated with a response time of >/= 29 min. In a multivariate model with the response time dichotomized at >/= 15 min ("slow") or < 15 min ("adequate"), pages placed through an indirect system were answered significantly more slowly than pages placed through a direct system (p < 0.001; odds ratio, 4.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.05 to 9.29). Pages answered in an adequate amount of time were also associated with a significantly higher degree of overall nursing satisfaction with the care delivered by the physician in response to the specific page when compared with pages answered in a "slow" manner (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who use an indirect paging system are significantly slower in their response to ICU pages when compared with physicians who utilize a direct paging system. These results may lead to improvements in paging systems used by physicians who care for patients in an ICU setting.
Authors: Mikhail A Dziadzko; Andrew M Harrison; Ing C Tiong; Brian W Pickering; Pablo Moreno Franco; Vitaly Herasevich Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 2.796