BACKGROUND: Improving patients' ability to identify their inpatient physicians and understand their roles is vital to safe patient care. Picture cards were designed to facilitate physician introductions. The effect of Feedback Care and Evaluation (FACE) cards on patients' ability to correctly identify their inpatient physicians and on patients understanding of physicians roles was assessed. METHODS: In October 2006, team members introduced themselves with FACE cards, which included a photo and an explanation of their roles. During an inpatient interview, research assistants asked patients to name their inpatient physicians and trainees and to rate their understanding of their physicians' roles. RESULTS: Of 2,100 eligible patients, 1,686 (80%) patients participated in the baseline period, and 857 (67%) of the 1,278 patients in the intervention period participated in the evaluation. With the FACE intervention, patients were significantly more likely to correctly identify at least one inpatient physician (attending, resident, or intern; baseline 12.5% versus intervention 21.1%; p < .001). Of the 181 patients who were able to correctly identify at least one inpatient physician in the intervention period, research assistants noted that 59% (107) had FACE cards visible in their rooms. Surprisingly, fewer patients rated their understanding of their physicians' roles as excellent or very good in the intervention period (45.6%) compared with the baseline period (55.3%; p < .001). DISCUSSION: Although FACE cards improved patients ability to identify their inpatient physicians, many patients still could not identify their inpatient doctors. FACE cards may have served as a reminder to physicians to introduce themselves to their patients. The FACE cards also served to highlight patients' misunderstanding of their physicians' roles.
BACKGROUND: Improving patients' ability to identify their inpatient physicians and understand their roles is vital to safe patient care. Picture cards were designed to facilitate physician introductions. The effect of Feedback Care and Evaluation (FACE) cards on patients' ability to correctly identify their inpatient physicians and on patients understanding of physicians roles was assessed. METHODS: In October 2006, team members introduced themselves with FACE cards, which included a photo and an explanation of their roles. During an inpatient interview, research assistants asked patients to name their inpatient physicians and trainees and to rate their understanding of their physicians' roles. RESULTS: Of 2,100 eligible patients, 1,686 (80%) patients participated in the baseline period, and 857 (67%) of the 1,278 patients in the intervention period participated in the evaluation. With the FACE intervention, patients were significantly more likely to correctly identify at least one inpatient physician (attending, resident, or intern; baseline 12.5% versus intervention 21.1%; p < .001). Of the 181 patients who were able to correctly identify at least one inpatient physician in the intervention period, research assistants noted that 59% (107) had FACE cards visible in their rooms. Surprisingly, fewer patients rated their understanding of their physicians' roles as excellent or very good in the intervention period (45.6%) compared with the baseline period (55.3%; p < .001). DISCUSSION: Although FACE cards improved patients ability to identify their inpatient physicians, many patients still could not identify their inpatient doctors. FACE cards may have served as a reminder to physicians to introduce themselves to their patients. The FACE cards also served to highlight patients' misunderstanding of their physicians' roles.
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Frank LeFevre; Christopher O Phillips; Mark V Williams; Preetha Basaviah; David W Baker Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Christopher L Roy; Eric G Poon; Andrew S Karson; Zahra Ladak-Merchant; Robin E Johnson; Saverio M Maviglia; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Karin V Rhodes; Teri Vieth; Theresa He; Annette Miller; David S Howes; Olivia Bailey; James Walter; Richard Frankel; Wendy Levinson Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Kathleen Broderick-Forsgren; Wynn G Hunter; Ryan D Schulteis; Wen-Wei Liu; Joel C Boggan; Poonam Sharma; Steven Thomas; Aimee Zaas; Jonathan Bae Journal: J Grad Med Educ Date: 2016-05
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; Mary E Lohman; Eckford Culver; Audrey Killarney; G Randy Smith; David M Liebovitz Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Charlie M Wray; Andrea Flores; William V Padula; Micah T Prochaska; David O Meltzer; Vineet M Arora Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-09-18 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Anthony V Aspesi; Greg E Kauffmann; Andrew M Davis; Elizabeth M Schulwolf; Valerie G Press; Kristen L Stupay; Janey J Lee; Vineet M Arora Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2013-04