Luci K Leykum1,2,3, Hannah Chesser4, Holly J Lanham5,6,7, Pezzia Carla6,8, Ray Palmer9, Temple Ratcliffe5,6, Heather Reisinger10, Michael Agar11, Jacqueline Pugh5,6. 1. South Texas Veterans Health Care System, 7400 Merton Minter, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. Leykum@uthscsa.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7400 Merton Minter, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. Leykum@uthscsa.edu. 3. McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, 7400 Merton Minter, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. Leykum@uthscsa.edu. 4. School of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. South Texas Veterans Health Care System, 7400 Merton Minter, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7400 Merton Minter, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. 7. McCombs School of Business, University of Texas at Austin, 7400 Merton Minter, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. 8. University of Dallas, Dallas, TX, USA. 9. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 10. Iowa City VA Health Care System, Iowa City, IA, USA. 11. Ethknoworks LLC, Santa Fe, NM, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sensemaking is the social act of assigning meaning to ambiguous events. It is recognized as a means to achieve high reliability. We sought to assess sensemaking in daily patient care through examining how inpatient teams round and discuss patients. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the association between inpatient physician team sensemaking and hospitalized patients' outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), unnecessary length of stay (ULOS), and complication rates. DESIGN: Eleven inpatient medicine teams' daily rounds were observed for 2 to 4 weeks. Rounds were audiotaped, and field notes taken. Four patient discussions per team were assessed using a standardized Situation, Task, Intent, Concern, Calibrate (STICC) framework. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient physician teams at the teaching hospitals affiliated with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio participated in the study. Outcomes of patients admitted to the teams were included. MAIN MEASURES: Sensemaking was assessed based on the order in which patients were seen, purposeful rounding, patient-driven rounding, and individual patient discussions. We assigned teams a score based on the number of STICC elements used in the four patient discussions sampled. The association between sensemaking and outcomes was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis sum rank and Dunn's tests. KEY RESULTS: Teams rounded in several different ways. Five teams rounded purposefully, and four based rounds on patient-driven needs. Purposeful and patient-driven rounds were significantly associated with lower complication rates. Varying the order in which patients were seen and purposefully rounding were significantly associated with lower LOS, and purposeful and patient-driven rounds associated with lower ULOS. Use of a greater number of STICC elements was associated with significantly lower LOS (4.6 vs. 5.7, p = 0.01), ULOS (0.3 vs. 0.6, p = 0.02), and complications (0.2 vs. 0.5, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Improving sensemaking may be a strategy for improving patient outcomes, fostering a shared understanding of a patient's clinical trajectory, and enabling high reliability.
BACKGROUND: Sensemaking is the social act of assigning meaning to ambiguous events. It is recognized as a means to achieve high reliability. We sought to assess sensemaking in daily patient care through examining how inpatient teams round and discuss patients. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to assess the association between inpatient physician team sensemaking and hospitalized patients' outcomes, including length of stay (LOS), unnecessary length of stay (ULOS), and complication rates. DESIGN: Eleven inpatient medicine teams' daily rounds were observed for 2 to 4 weeks. Rounds were audiotaped, and field notes taken. Four patient discussions per team were assessed using a standardized Situation, Task, Intent, Concern, Calibrate (STICC) framework. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient physician teams at the teaching hospitals affiliated with the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio participated in the study. Outcomes of patients admitted to the teams were included. MAIN MEASURES: Sensemaking was assessed based on the order in which patients were seen, purposeful rounding, patient-driven rounding, and individual patient discussions. We assigned teams a score based on the number of STICC elements used in the four patient discussions sampled. The association between sensemaking and outcomes was assessed using Kruskal-Wallis sum rank and Dunn's tests. KEY RESULTS: Teams rounded in several different ways. Five teams rounded purposefully, and four based rounds on patient-driven needs. Purposeful and patient-driven rounds were significantly associated with lower complication rates. Varying the order in which patients were seen and purposefully rounding were significantly associated with lower LOS, and purposeful and patient-driven rounds associated with lower ULOS. Use of a greater number of STICC elements was associated with significantly lower LOS (4.6 vs. 5.7, p = 0.01), ULOS (0.3 vs. 0.6, p = 0.02), and complications (0.2 vs. 0.5, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Improving sensemaking may be a strategy for improving patient outcomes, fostering a shared understanding of a patient's clinical trajectory, and enabling high reliability.
Authors: Christopher P Landrigan; Gareth J Parry; Catherine B Bones; Andrew D Hackbarth; Donald A Goldmann; Paul J Sharek Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-11-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Scott C Williams; Stephen P Schmaltz; David J Morton; Richard G Koss; Jerod M Loeb Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-07-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chad Stickrath; Melissa Noble; Allan Prochazka; Mel Anderson; Megan Griffiths; Jonathan Manheim; Stefan Sillau; Eva Aagaard Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-06-24 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Temple A Ratcliffe; Meghan A Crabtree; Raymond F Palmer; Jacqueline A Pugh; Holly J Lanham; Luci K Leykum Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lauren S Penney; Luci K Leykum; Polly Noël; Erin P Finley; Holly Jordan Lanham; Jacqueline Pugh Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-04-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Brandon Tang; Ryan Sandarage; Jocelyn Chai; Kristin Anne Dawson; Katrina Rose Dutkiewicz; Stephan Saad; Vanessa Kitchin; Rose Hatala; Iain McCormick; Barry Kassen Journal: CMAJ Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 8.262