Bryan D Steitz1, Kim M Unertl1, Mia A Levy1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Research to date focused on quantifying team collaboration has relied on identifying shared patients but does not incorporate the major role of communication patterns. The goal of this study was to describe the patterns and volume of communication among care team members involved in treating breast cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 4 years of communications data from the electronic health record between care team members at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Our cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer was identified using the VUMC tumor registry. We classified each care team member participating in electronic messaging by their institutional role and classified physicians by specialty. To identify collaborative patterns, we modeled the data as a social network. RESULTS: Our cohort of 1181 patients was the subject of 322 424 messages sent in 104 210 unique communication threads by 5620 employees. On average, each patient was the subject of 88.2 message threads involving 106.4 employees. Each employee, on average, sent 72.9 messages and was connected to 24.6 collaborators. Nurses and physicians were involved in 98% and 44% of all message threads, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that many providers in our study may experience a high volume of messaging work. By using data routinely generated through interaction with the electronic health record, we can begin to evaluate how to iteratively implement and assess initiatives to improve the efficiency of care coordination and reduce unnecessary messaging work across all care team roles.
OBJECTIVE: Research to date focused on quantifying team collaboration has relied on identifying shared patients but does not incorporate the major role of communication patterns. The goal of this study was to describe the patterns and volume of communication among care team members involved in treating breast cancerpatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 4 years of communications data from the electronic health record between care team members at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC). Our cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer was identified using the VUMC tumor registry. We classified each care team member participating in electronic messaging by their institutional role and classified physicians by specialty. To identify collaborative patterns, we modeled the data as a social network. RESULTS: Our cohort of 1181 patients was the subject of 322 424 messages sent in 104 210 unique communication threads by 5620 employees. On average, each patient was the subject of 88.2 message threads involving 106.4 employees. Each employee, on average, sent 72.9 messages and was connected to 24.6 collaborators. Nurses and physicians were involved in 98% and 44% of all message threads, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that many providers in our study may experience a high volume of messaging work. By using data routinely generated through interaction with the electronic health record, we can begin to evaluate how to iteratively implement and assess initiatives to improve the efficiency of care coordination and reduce unnecessary messaging work across all care team roles.
Authors: K S Saini; C Taylor; A-J Ramirez; C Palmieri; U Gunnarsson; H J Schmoll; S M Dolci; C Ghenne; O Metzger-Filho; M Skrzypski; M Paesmans; L Ameye; M J Piccart-Gebhart; E de Azambuja Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ming Tai-Seale; Ellis C Dillon; Yan Yang; Robert Nordgren; Ruth L Steinberg; Teresa Nauenberg; Tim C Lee; Amy Meehan; Jinnan Li; Albert Solomon Chan; Dominick L Frosch Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Patti Flatley Brennan; Rupa Valdez; Greg Alexander; Shifali Arora; Elmer V Bernstam; Margo Edmunds; Nikolai Kirienko; Ross D Martin; Ida Sim; Diane Skiba; Trent Rosenbloom Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Bruce E Landon; Nancy L Keating; Michael L Barnett; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Sudeshna Paul; A James O'Malley; Thomas Keegan; Nicholas A Christakis Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-07-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Omar Hasan; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Bryan D Steitz; Lina Sulieman; Jeremy L Warner; Daniel Fabbri; J Thomas Brown; Alyssa L Davis; Kim M Unertl Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2021-08-12