Joanna Abraham1, Joanna Jaros2, Imade Ihianle2, Karl Kochendorfer3, Thomas Kannampallil4. 1. Department of Anesthesiology & Institute for Informatics, School of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States. Electronic address: joannaa@wustl.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical and Health Information Sciences, College of Applied Health Sciences, United States. 3. Department of Family Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States. 4. Department of Anesthesiology & Institute for Informatics, School of Medicine, Washington University in St Louis, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Structured rounding tools have shown to improve the overall efficiency and perceived satisfaction with the rounding process. However, little is known about how EHR-integrated rounding tools impact the content, structure and interactivity of communication during rounds. METHOD: We conducted a prospective pre-post evaluation with two rounding tools: a Microsoft Word-based fillable rounding tool (usual tool), and an EHR-integrated rounding report tool (RRT). 27 clinicians across two teams participated in rounds for 169 patients (nusual=84, nRRT=85). We audio-recorded and coded communication during rounds using conversational analysis methods. Using the coded communication interactions, we investigated differences between the two tools on: clinical content discussed, questions raised, and breakdowns in interactive communication. Additionally, we gathered clinician perspectives on the rounding tools through follow-up interviews. RESULTS: We found that the use of RRT was associated with significantly more discussion of patient identifiers (e.g., name), and action items (e.g., to-do list) and significantly less discussion of imaging (e.g., X-rays) than the usual tool. RRT was also associated with fewer questions (t = 3.1, p = 0.03), and correspondingly, fewer responses (t = 3.2, p = 0.02). Communication breakdowns related to incorrect responses was fewer during the use of RRT (t = 0.5, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in the time spent for rounding between the two tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that RRT impacted rounding workflow: during pre-rounding, by saving time and effort in gathering information from multiple sources; during rounding, by streamlining content of the conversations using the structured RRT template; and during post-rounding, by supporting explicit discussion of patient tasks and action items for patient care planning and management.
OBJECTIVE: Structured rounding tools have shown to improve the overall efficiency and perceived satisfaction with the rounding process. However, little is known about how EHR-integrated rounding tools impact the content, structure and interactivity of communication during rounds. METHOD: We conducted a prospective pre-post evaluation with two rounding tools: a Microsoft Word-based fillable rounding tool (usual tool), and an EHR-integrated rounding report tool (RRT). 27 clinicians across two teams participated in rounds for 169 patients (nusual=84, nRRT=85). We audio-recorded and coded communication during rounds using conversational analysis methods. Using the coded communication interactions, we investigated differences between the two tools on: clinical content discussed, questions raised, and breakdowns in interactive communication. Additionally, we gathered clinician perspectives on the rounding tools through follow-up interviews. RESULTS: We found that the use of RRT was associated with significantly more discussion of patient identifiers (e.g., name), and action items (e.g., to-do list) and significantly less discussion of imaging (e.g., X-rays) than the usual tool. RRT was also associated with fewer questions (t = 3.1, p = 0.03), and correspondingly, fewer responses (t = 3.2, p = 0.02). Communication breakdowns related to incorrect responses was fewer during the use of RRT (t = 0.5, p = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences in the time spent for rounding between the two tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that RRT impacted rounding workflow: during pre-rounding, by saving time and effort in gathering information from multiple sources; during rounding, by streamlining content of the conversations using the structured RRT template; and during post-rounding, by supporting explicit discussion of patient tasks and action items for patient care planning and management.
Authors: Samantha T Robertson; Ingrid C M Rosbergen; Andrew Burton-Jones; Rohan S Grimley; Sandra G Brauer Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 2.762