LO92: Improving patient communication in an emergency department's rapid assessment zone. (May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Taher, A.; Webster Magcalas, F.; Woolner, V.; Casey, S.; Davies, D.; Chartier, L.
• Is Part Of: CJEM. Volume 21(2019)Supplement 1
• Page Start: S41
• Page End: S41
• Publication Date: 2019-05
• Subjects: communication, -- emergency department, -- quality improvement and patient safety; Emergency Treatment -- Periodicals; Emergency Medicine -- Periodicals; Emergency medical services -- Canada -- Periodicals; Medical emergencies -- Canada -- Periodicals; Emergency medical services; Medical emergencies; Canada; Periodicals; 616.02505
• DOI: 10.1017/cem.2019.134
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1481-8035

Abstract

Abstract : Background : Emergency Department (ED) communication between patients and clinicians is fraught with challenges. A local survey of 65 ED patients revealed low patient satisfaction with ED communication and resultant patient anxiety.Aim Statement: To increase patient satisfaction with ED communication and to decrease patient anxiety related to lack of ED visit information (primary aims), and to decrease clinician-perceived patient interruptions (secondary aim), each by one point on a 5-point Likert scale over a six-month period.Measures & Design : We performed wide stakeholder engagement, surveyed patients and clinicians, and conducted a patient focus group. An inductive analysis followed by a yield-feasibility-effort grid led to three interventions, introduced through sequential and additive Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. PDSA 1: clinician communication tool (Acknowledge-Empathize-Inform [AEI] tool), based on survey themes and a literature review, and introduced through a multi-modal education approach. PDSA 2: patient information pamphlets developed with stakeholder input. PDSA 3: new waiting room TV screen with various informational ED-specific videos. Measures were conducted through anonymous surveys: Primary aims towards the end of the patient ED stay, and the secondary aim at the end of the clinician shift. We used Statistical Process Control (SPC) charts with usual special cause variation rules. Two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess for statistical significance between means (significance: p < 0.05).Evaluation/Results: Over five months, 232 patient and 104 clinician surveys were collected. Wait times, ED processes, timing of typical steps, and directions were reported as the most important communication gaps, they and were included in the interventions. Patient satisfaction improved from 3.28 (5 being best, all means; n = 65) to 4.15 (n = 59, p < 0.0001). Patient anxiety improved from 2.96 (1 being best; n = 65) to 2.31 (n = 59, p < 0.01). Clinician-perceived interruptions went from 4.33 (1 being best; n = 30) to 4.18 (n = 11, p = 0.98). SPC charts using Likert scales did not show special cause variation.Discussion/Impact: A sequential, additive approach undertaken with pragmatic and low-cost interventions based on both clinician and patient input led to increased patient satisfaction with communication and decreased patient anxiety due to lack of ED visit information after PDSA cycles. These approaches could easily be replicated in other EDs to improve the patient experience.