Improving Family-Centered Rounds With a Nursing Checklist in the Electronic Health Care Record.

Q1 Nursing Hospital pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1542/hpeds.2023-007469
Gayatri Boddupalli Madduri, Tristan Nichols, Fatma Gunturkun, Denise Johnson, Anne Lum, Mason Agatep Shaner, Yingjie Weng, Nivedita Srinivas, Lyn Dos Santos
{"title":"Improving Family-Centered Rounds With a Nursing Checklist in the Electronic Health Care Record.","authors":"Gayatri Boddupalli Madduri, Tristan Nichols, Fatma Gunturkun, Denise Johnson, Anne Lum, Mason Agatep Shaner, Yingjie Weng, Nivedita Srinivas, Lyn Dos Santos","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2023-007469","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Family-centered rounds (FCR) is the standard for pediatric communication, but community pediatric hospital medicine services may face barriers in implementation, including offering FCR to families with a language preference other than English (LOE) versus those with an English preference (EP). The goal of our quality improvement project was to increase FCR from 33% to 80% over 1 year.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Interventions included an FCR checklist integrated into the electronic healthcare record (EHR-FCR checklist), staff education, visual prompts, and interpreters. Our primary outcome measure was weekly % FCR. Our main process measure was weekly % nursing documentation. To address language inclusion, we compared FCR encounters for families with LOE versus EP. The use of the checklist without interventions was assessed during the sustain period. Control charts were used to analyze measures. Fisher's exact test was used to compare FCR for families with LOE versus EP.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>FCR increased to 81% during the intervention period and then decreased to 73% during the sustain period. Nursing documentation increased to 93% with the EHR-FCR checklist implemented as a flowsheet. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of families with LOE versus EP who participated in FCR (84% versus 81%, P = .38) during the intervention period; a statistically higher proportion of families with LOE participated in FCR during the sustain period (87% vs 72%, P <.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We increased documented FCR on our community pediatric hospital medicine service, including FCR for families with LOE, by implementing a nursing-completed EHR-FCR checklist supported by staff education, visual prompts, and interpreters.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"919-927"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2023-007469","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Family-centered rounds (FCR) is the standard for pediatric communication, but community pediatric hospital medicine services may face barriers in implementation, including offering FCR to families with a language preference other than English (LOE) versus those with an English preference (EP). The goal of our quality improvement project was to increase FCR from 33% to 80% over 1 year.

Methods: Interventions included an FCR checklist integrated into the electronic healthcare record (EHR-FCR checklist), staff education, visual prompts, and interpreters. Our primary outcome measure was weekly % FCR. Our main process measure was weekly % nursing documentation. To address language inclusion, we compared FCR encounters for families with LOE versus EP. The use of the checklist without interventions was assessed during the sustain period. Control charts were used to analyze measures. Fisher's exact test was used to compare FCR for families with LOE versus EP.

Results: FCR increased to 81% during the intervention period and then decreased to 73% during the sustain period. Nursing documentation increased to 93% with the EHR-FCR checklist implemented as a flowsheet. There was no statistical difference in the proportion of families with LOE versus EP who participated in FCR (84% versus 81%, P = .38) during the intervention period; a statistically higher proportion of families with LOE participated in FCR during the sustain period (87% vs 72%, P <.01).

Conclusions: We increased documented FCR on our community pediatric hospital medicine service, including FCR for families with LOE, by implementing a nursing-completed EHR-FCR checklist supported by staff education, visual prompts, and interpreters.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过电子医疗记录中的护理核对表改进以家庭为中心的查房。
目的:以家庭为中心的查房(FCR)是儿科沟通的标准,但社区儿科医院的医疗服务在实施过程中可能会遇到障碍,包括为非英语(LOE)家庭和英语(EP)家庭提供 FCR。我们质量改进项目的目标是在一年内将 FCR 从 33% 提高到 80%:方法:干预措施包括整合到电子医疗记录中的 FCR 核对表(EHR-FCR 核对表)、员工教育、视觉提示和翻译。我们的主要结果指标是每周 FCR 百分比。我们的主要过程测量指标是每周护理记录百分比。为了解决语言包容性问题,我们比较了有 LOE 的家庭与有 EP 的家庭的 FCR 情况。在维持期间,我们评估了在未采取干预措施的情况下检查表的使用情况。对照表用于分析测量结果。费雪精确检验用于比较LOE与EP家庭的FCR:结果:在干预期间,FCR 上升到 81%,然后在维持期间下降到 73%。在将电子病历-FCR 核对表作为流程表实施后,护理文件记录率提高到了 93%。在干预期间,参加 FCR 的 LOE 家庭与 EP 家庭的比例没有统计学差异(84% 对 81%,P = .38);在持续期间,参加 FCR 的 LOE 家庭的比例在统计学上较高(87% 对 72%,P 结论:我们增加了我们社区的 FCR 记录:在我们的社区儿科医院医疗服务中,通过实施由护理人员填写的电子病历-FCR 核对表,并辅以员工教育、视觉提示和翻译,我们增加了记录在案的 FCR,包括对 LOE 家庭的 FCR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Hospital pediatrics
Hospital pediatrics Nursing-Pediatrics
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
期刊最新文献
Testing and Treatment Thresholds for Pediatric Pneumonia in the Emergency Department. It's More Complicated Than Interpreter Use: Improving Care for Non-English-Speaking Families. Factors Associated With Nirsevimab Uptake in Healthy Newborns. Nirsevimab Administration During the Birth Hospitalization. Extravasation Identification and Management in Neonates and Pediatrics: A Cross Sectional Survey.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1