BACKGROUND: Effective clinical communication is critical to providing high-quality patient care. Hospitals have used different types of interventions to improve communication between care teams, but there have been few studies of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To describe the effects of different communication interventions and their problems. DESIGN: Prospective observational case study using a mixed methods approach of quantitative and qualitative methods. SETTING: General internal medicine (GIM) inpatient wards at five tertiary care academic teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians consisting of residents, attending physicians, nurses, and allied health (AH) staff working on the GIM wards. METHODS: Ethnographic methods and interviews with clinical staff (doctors, nurses, medical students, and AH professionals) were conducted over a 16-month period from 2009 to 2010. RESULTS: We identified four categories that described the intended and unintended consequences of communication interventions: impacts on senders, receivers, interprofessional collaboration, and the use of informal communication processes. The use of alphanumeric pagers, smartphones, and web-based communication systems had positive effects for senders and receivers, but unintended consequences were seen with all interventions in all four categories. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that aimed to improve clinical communications solved some but not all problems, and unintended effects were seen with all systems.
BACKGROUND: Effective clinical communication is critical to providing high-quality patient care. Hospitals have used different types of interventions to improve communication between care teams, but there have been few studies of their effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To describe the effects of different communication interventions and their problems. DESIGN: Prospective observational case study using a mixed methods approach of quantitative and qualitative methods. SETTING: General internal medicine (GIM) inpatient wards at five tertiary care academic teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians consisting of residents, attending physicians, nurses, and allied health (AH) staff working on the GIM wards. METHODS: Ethnographic methods and interviews with clinical staff (doctors, nurses, medical students, and AH professionals) were conducted over a 16-month period from 2009 to 2010. RESULTS: We identified four categories that described the intended and unintended consequences of communication interventions: impacts on senders, receivers, interprofessional collaboration, and the use of informal communication processes. The use of alphanumeric pagers, smartphones, and web-based communication systems had positive effects for senders and receivers, but unintended consequences were seen with all interventions in all four categories. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that aimed to improve clinical communications solved some but not all problems, and unintended effects were seen with all systems.
Authors: T A Brennan; L L Leape; N M Laird; L Hebert; A R Localio; A G Lawthers; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H H Hiatt Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1991-02-07 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G Ross Baker; Peter G Norton; Virginia Flintoft; Régis Blais; Adalsteinn Brown; Jafna Cox; Ed Etchells; William A Ghali; Philip Hébert; Sumit R Majumdar; Maeve O'Beirne; Luz Palacios-Derflingher; Robert J Reid; Sam Sheps; Robyn Tamblyn Journal: CMAJ Date: 2004-05-25 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Robert Wu; Peter Rossos; Sherman Quan; Scott Reeves; Vivian Lo; Brian Wong; Mark Cheung; Dante Morra Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2011-08-29 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Guy Martin; Ankur Khajuria; Sonal Arora; Dominic King; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kathleen E Walsh; Jessica L Secor; Jon S Matsumura; Margaret L Schwarze; Beth E Potter; Peter Newcomer; Michael K Kim; Christie M Bartels Journal: J Healthc Qual Date: 2018 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 1.095
Authors: Neha Patel; James E Siegler; Nathaniel Stromberg; Neil Ravitz; C William Hanson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.342