The relationship between the survey-guided assessment of culture within specific nursing work groups and readiness for change.

Change within health-care systems is constant as it relates to the external and internal demands that require continual adaptation by providers. This chapter provides a summary of the history and research contributions related to the study of culture and change through the lens of the nursing profession. The review focuses upon nursing research publications and the knowledge gained, ranging from the earliest to current studies. There has been a substantial increase in research interest regarding the relationship between nursing culture and ability to change; however, there is a considerable gap that remains in understanding subgroups such as individual nursing units or departments, consistent use of tools to measure culture, and interventions that have made a difference over time. From a practical perspective, this discussion provides insight into the importance of recognizing the importance of assessing culture and integrating cultural feedback into operational improvement plans.

Structured interdisciplinary rounds in a medical teaching unit: improving patient safety.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential to providing safe hospital care. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of an intervention designed to improve interdisciplinary collaboration and lower the rate of adverse events (AEs). METHODS: The study was a controlled trial of an intervention, Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds, implemented in 1 of 2 similar medical teaching units in a tertiary care academic hospital. The intervention combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We conducted a retrospective medical record review evaluating 370 randomly selected patients admitted to the intervention and control units (n = 185 each) in the 24 weeks after and 185 admitted to the intervention unit in the 24 weeks before the implementation of Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds (N = 555). Medical records were screened for AEs. Two hospitalists confirmed the presence of AEs and assessed their preventability and severity in a masked fashion. We used multivariable Poisson regression models to compare the adjusted incidence of AEs in the intervention unit to that in concurrent and historic control units. RESULTS: The rate of AEs was 3.9 per 100 patient-days for the intervention unit compared with 7.2 and 7.7 per 100 patient-days, respectively, for the concurrent and historic control units (adjusted rate ratio, 0.54; P = .005; and 0.51; P = .001). The rate of preventable AEs was 0.9 per 100 patient-days for the intervention unit compared with 2.8 and 2.1 per 100 patient-days for the concurrent and historic control units (adjusted rate ratio, 0.27; P = .002; and 0.37; P = .02). The low number of AEs rated as serious or life-threatening precluded statistical analysis for differences in rates of events classified as serious or serious and preventable. CONCLUSION: Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds significantly reduced the adjusted rate of AEs in a medical teaching unit.

Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential in providing safe and effective care. Research reveals deficiencies in teamwork on medical units involving hospitalists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an intervention, Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds (SIDR), on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork. METHODS: The study was a controlled trial involving an intervention and control hospitalist unit. The intervention, SIDR, combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We asked nurses to rate the quality of communication and collaboration with hospitalists using a 5-point ordinal scale. We also assessed teamwork and safety climate using a validated instrument. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the impact on length of stay (LOS) and cost using both a concurrent and historic control. RESULTS: A total of 49 of 58 (84%) nurses completed surveys. A larger percentage of nurses rated the quality of communication and collaboration with hospitalists as high or very high on the intervention unit compared to the control unit (80% vs. 54%; P = 0.05). Nurses also rated the teamwork and safety climate significantly higher on the intervention unit (P = 0.008 and P = 0.03 for teamwork and safety climate, respectively). Multivariable analyses demonstrated no difference in the adjusted LOS and an inconsistent effect on cost. CONCLUSIONS: SIDR had a positive effect on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork on a hospitalist unit, yet no impact on LOS and cost. Further study is required to assess the impact of SIDR on patient safety measures.

Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a medical teaching unit.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential in providing safe and effective hospital care. Prior research reveals deficiencies in collaboration on medical teaching units. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an intervention, structured inter-disciplinary rounds (SIDR), on hospital care providers' ratings of collaboration and teamwork. METHODS: The study was a controlled trial comparing an intervention medical teaching unit with a similar control unit. The intervention, SIDR, combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We surveyed providers on each unit and asked them to rate the quality of communication and collaboration they had experienced with other disciplines using a five-point ordinal scale. We also assessed the teamwork and safety climate using a validated instrument. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the impact on length of stay (LOS) and cost. RESULTS: One hundred forty-seven of 159 (92%) eligible providers completed the survey. Although resident physicians on each unit rated the quality of communication and collaboration with nurses similarly, a greater percentage of nurses gave high ratings to the quality of collaboration with resident physicians on the intervention unit as compared to the control unit (74% vs. 44%; p = 0.02). Providers on the intervention unit rated the teamwork climate significantly higher as compared to the control unit (82.4 +/- 11.7 vs. 77.3 +/- 12.3; p = 0.01). The difference was explained by higher teamwork climate ratings on the part of nurses on the intervention unit (83.5 +/- 14.7 vs. 74.2 +/- 14.1; p = 0.005). Ratings of the safety climate were not significantly different between units. Adjusted LOS and hospital costs were not significantly different between units. CONCLUSIONS: SIDR had a positive effect on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork on a medical teaching unit. Further study is required to assess the impact of SIDR on patient safety measures.

Impact of localizing physicians to hospital units on nurse-physician communication and agreement on the plan of care.

BACKGROUND: A significant barrier to communication among patient care providers in hospitals is the geographic dispersion of team members. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether localizing physicians to specific patient care units improves nurse-physician communication and agreement on patients' plans of care. METHODS: We conducted structured interviews of a cross-sectional sample of nurses and physicians before and after an intervention to localize physicians to specific patient care units. Interviews characterized patterns of nurse-physician communication and assessed understanding of patients' plans of care. Two internists reviewed responses and rated nurse-physician agreement on six aspects of the plan of care as none, partial, or complete agreement. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven of 342 (91%) and 291 of 294 (99%) patients' nurses and 301 of 342 (88%) and 285 of 294 (97%) physicians completed the interview during the pre- and post-localization periods. Two hundred nine of 285 (73%) patients were localized to physicians' designated patient care units in the post-localization period. After localization, a higher percentage of patients' nurses and physicians was able to correctly identify one another (93% vs. 71%; p < 0.001 and 58% vs. 36%; p < 0.001, respectively). Nurses and physicians reported more frequent communication after localization (68% vs. 50%; p < 0.001 and 74% vs. 61%; p < 0.001, respectively). Nurse-physician agreement was significantly improved for two aspects of the plan of care: planned tests and anticipated length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Although nurses and physicians were able to identify one another and communicated more frequently after localizing physicians to specific patient care units, there was little impact on nurse-physician agreement on the plan of care.

Effect of a hospitalist-care coordinator team on a nonteaching hospitalist service.

BACKGROUND: Although many hospitalists work with clinical coordinators, few studies have evaluated their impact. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the impact of a hospitalist-care coordinator team on hospitalist work experience, patient satisfaction, and hospital efficiency. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: During each of 12 weeks, hospitalists on a nonteaching hospitalist service were randomly assigned to work with a hospitalist care coordinator (HCC) or to work independently. MEASUREMENTS: Each week hospitalists completed a survey to assess their satisfaction and perceived work efficiency. Patient satisfaction with hospital discharge was assessed by telephone interviews. Hospital efficiency was analyzed with multivariate linear regression using log-transformed length of stay (LOS) and cost as dependent variables. RESULTS: The 356 patients cared for by hospitalist-HCC teams were similar to 337 patients cared for by control hospitalists. Twenty-eight of 31 hospitalists (90%) who worked with an HCC responded that the HCC improved their efficiency and job satisfaction. Seventy-one of 196 eligible patients (36%) completed the postdischarge interview. The mean ratings of overall satisfaction with hospital discharge on a scale of 10 were similarly high in both groups (8.57 vs. 8.37; P = .94). In multivariate regression analyses, LOS was 0.28 days shorter and cost was $585.62 lower for patients cared for by hospitalist-HCC teams; however, these results were not statistically significant (P = .17 and .15, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists working in a team approach with an HCC reported improved efficiency and job satisfaction compared with hospitalists working independently. These findings are important in light of growing concerns about hospitalist workload and job satisfaction.

Patient satisfaction with the communication of mammographic results before and after the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the difference in patient satisfaction, timeliness of reporting, patient recollection of recommendations, and patient anxiety before and after passage of the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act of 1998, which requires written notification of all mammographic results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a telephone survey with sampling that was stratified to reflect patients with normal and abnormal findings who had screening and diagnostic mammograms. Patients with visits before the mandate became effective (April 1999, n = 298) and after (January 2000, n = 316) were interviewed about the average time to receive results, satisfaction with communication about results, anxiety, and perceived follow-up recommendations. Multiple logistic regression was used to test the association of time period with patient dissatisfaction, controlling for age, anxiety level (considerable or extreme vs none or moderate), examination type (screening vs diagnostic), and examination result (normal vs abnormal findings). RESULTS: No significant difference was found between periods in anxiety about results or agreement with documented radiology recommendations, but we found a substantial increase in the number of screening patients who reported timely receipt of results. Significantly fewer patients were dissatisfied with mammographic results communication after the mandate (multivariable odds ratio = 0.46, p = 0.006). Screening examination patients and patients who reported considerable or extreme anxiety about test results were more likely to be dissatisfied in both periods. CONCLUSION: By standardizing results notification, the Mammography Quality Standards Reauthorization Act improved patient satisfaction and reporting timeliness among screening examination patients, but did little to improve anxiety or recollection of recommendations. Future quality improvement efforts should focus on improving patients' understanding of follow-up recommendations.