BACKGROUND: A significant barrier to communication among patient care providers in hospitals is the geographic dispersion of team members. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether localizing physicians to specific patient care units improves nurse-physician communication and agreement on patients' plans of care. METHODS: We conducted structured interviews of a cross-sectional sample of nurses and physicians before and after an intervention to localize physicians to specific patient care units. Interviews characterized patterns of nurse-physician communication and assessed understanding of patients' plans of care. Two internists reviewed responses and rated nurse-physician agreement on six aspects of the plan of care as none, partial, or complete agreement. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven of 342 (91%) and 291 of 294 (99%) patients' nurses and 301 of 342 (88%) and 285 of 294 (97%) physicians completed the interview during the pre- and post-localization periods. Two hundred nine of 285 (73%) patients were localized to physicians' designated patient care units in the post-localization period. After localization, a higher percentage of patients' nurses and physicians was able to correctly identify one another (93% vs. 71%; p < 0.001 and 58% vs. 36%; p < 0.001, respectively). Nurses and physicians reported more frequent communication after localization (68% vs. 50%; p < 0.001 and 74% vs. 61%; p < 0.001, respectively). Nurse-physician agreement was significantly improved for two aspects of the plan of care: planned tests and anticipated length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although nurses and physicians were able to identify one another and communicated more frequently after localizing physicians to specific patient care units, there was little impact on nurse-physician agreement on the plan of care.
BACKGROUND: A significant barrier to communication among patient care providers in hospitals is the geographic dispersion of team members. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether localizing physicians to specific patient care units improves nurse-physician communication and agreement on patients' plans of care. METHODS: We conducted structured interviews of a cross-sectional sample of nurses and physicians before and after an intervention to localize physicians to specific patient care units. Interviews characterized patterns of nurse-physician communication and assessed understanding of patients' plans of care. Two internists reviewed responses and rated nurse-physician agreement on six aspects of the plan of care as none, partial, or complete agreement. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven of 342 (91%) and 291 of 294 (99%) patients' nurses and 301 of 342 (88%) and 285 of 294 (97%) physicians completed the interview during the pre- and post-localization periods. Two hundred nine of 285 (73%) patients were localized to physicians' designated patient care units in the post-localization period. After localization, a higher percentage of patients' nurses and physicians was able to correctly identify one another (93% vs. 71%; p < 0.001 and 58% vs. 36%; p < 0.001, respectively). Nurses and physicians reported more frequent communication after localization (68% vs. 50%; p < 0.001 and 74% vs. 61%; p < 0.001, respectively). Nurse-physician agreement was significantly improved for two aspects of the plan of care: planned tests and anticipated length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although nurses and physicians were able to identify one another and communicated more frequently after localizing physicians to specific patient care units, there was little impact on nurse-physician agreement on the plan of care.
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; J A Thompson; M P Landler; N Kulkarni; C Haviley; K Hahn; J Jeon; D B Wayne; D W Baker; M V Williams Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-04-29
Authors: Mangala Narasimhan; Lewis A Eisen; Christine D Mahoney; Frank L Acerra; Mark J Rosen Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mark D Aronson; Naama Neeman; Alexander Carbo; Anjala V Tess; Julius J Yang; Patricia Folcarelli; Kenneth F Sands; Mark L Zeidel Journal: Am J Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Guy Haller; Philippe Garnerin; Michel-Ange Morales; Ricardo Pfister; Michel Berner; Olivier Irion; François Clergue; Christian Kern Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Peter Pronovost; Sean Berenholtz; Todd Dorman; Pam A Lipsett; Terri Simmonds; Carol Haraden Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; Diane B Wayne; Corinne Haviley; Maureen E Slade; Jungwha Lee; Mark V Williams Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Henry J Michtalik; Peter J Pronovost; Jill A Marsteller; Joanne Spetz; Daniel J Brotman Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Christine Bryson; Greta Boynton; Anna Stepczynski; Jane Garb; Reva Kleppel; Farzan Irani; Siva Natanasabapathy; Mihaela S Stefan Journal: Hosp Pract (1995) Date: 2017-07-28
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Patricia Dykes; Lipika Samal; Kelly McNally; Eli Mlaver; Cathy S Yoon; Stuart R Lipsitz; David W Bates Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Michael B Rothberg; John R Steele; John Wheeler; Ashish Arora; Aruna Priya; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Lissi Hansen; Linda Ganzini; Nancy Press; Molly L Osborne; Mark S Chesnutt; Richard A Mularski Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Milisa Manojlovich; Molly Harrod; Timothy P Hofer; Megan Lafferty; Michaella McBratnie; Sarah L Krein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 5.128