Improving Job Completion in Acute Medical Units Through Role-Specific Documentation: A Quality Improvement Project.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Journal for Healthcare Quality Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI:10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000463
David Bull, Marina Pagaki-Skaliora, Ava Rietdy, Gabriella Mukahanana, Asmita Raja, Ishwar Malhi
{"title":"Improving Job Completion in Acute Medical Units Through Role-Specific Documentation: A Quality Improvement Project.","authors":"David Bull, Marina Pagaki-Skaliora, Ava Rietdy, Gabriella Mukahanana, Asmita Raja, Ishwar Malhi","doi":"10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>High-quality documentation is vital for efficient patient care. This study aimed to enhance documentation clarity in the acute medical unit (AMU) at our local institution and to improve job completion rates and reduce missed jobs per patient per day (JPD). From January 26 to April 10, 2024, we collected data on 606 patients and 2,298 jobs. Four collaborators documented patient plans using either Standard Documentation or a novel Role-Specific Documentation. Standard Documentation used a single \"Plan\" heading, while Role-Specific Documentation used specific headings for \"Doctors,\" \"Nurses,\" and \"MDT\" (Multidisciplinary Team). Data were analyzed using Student t-test (p < .05). Standard Documentation group documented 1,291 jobs for 345 patients; Role-Specific Documentation group documented 1,007 jobs for 261 patients. Role-Specific Documentation had fewer missed jobs (147 vs. 294, p = .0002) and a higher percentage of completed jobs (85.74% vs. 77.99%, p = .0003). Although total job completion showed no significant difference, Role-Specific Documentation had more completed JPD (3.47 vs. 2.94, p = .0052). The Role-Specific Documentation system improved job completion and reduced missed JPD. Despite fewer patients, the new system proved more efficient, suggesting potential for wider adoption. Future studies should explore the documentation methods' impact on clinical outcomes and operational metrics.</p>","PeriodicalId":48801,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","volume":"47 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Healthcare Quality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000463","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract: High-quality documentation is vital for efficient patient care. This study aimed to enhance documentation clarity in the acute medical unit (AMU) at our local institution and to improve job completion rates and reduce missed jobs per patient per day (JPD). From January 26 to April 10, 2024, we collected data on 606 patients and 2,298 jobs. Four collaborators documented patient plans using either Standard Documentation or a novel Role-Specific Documentation. Standard Documentation used a single "Plan" heading, while Role-Specific Documentation used specific headings for "Doctors," "Nurses," and "MDT" (Multidisciplinary Team). Data were analyzed using Student t-test (p < .05). Standard Documentation group documented 1,291 jobs for 345 patients; Role-Specific Documentation group documented 1,007 jobs for 261 patients. Role-Specific Documentation had fewer missed jobs (147 vs. 294, p = .0002) and a higher percentage of completed jobs (85.74% vs. 77.99%, p = .0003). Although total job completion showed no significant difference, Role-Specific Documentation had more completed JPD (3.47 vs. 2.94, p = .0052). The Role-Specific Documentation system improved job completion and reduced missed JPD. Despite fewer patients, the new system proved more efficient, suggesting potential for wider adoption. Future studies should explore the documentation methods' impact on clinical outcomes and operational metrics.

通过角色特定文件提高急症医疗单位的工作完成度:一个质量改进项目。
摘要:高质量的文档对于高效的患者护理至关重要。本研究旨在提高我们当地机构急症医疗单位(AMU)的文件清晰度,提高工作完成率,减少每名患者每天(JPD)的遗漏工作。从2024年1月26日至4月10日,我们收集了606名患者和2298份工作的数据。四名合作者使用标准文档或新颖的角色特定文档记录患者计划。标准文档使用单一的“计划”标题,而角色特定文档使用“医生”、“护士”和“MDT”(多学科团队)的特定标题。数据分析采用Student t检验(p < 0.05)。标准文档组记录了345名患者的1,291个工作;角色特定文档组记录了261名患者的1,007个工作。角色特定文档的遗漏工作较少(147对294,p = 0.0002),完成工作的百分比较高(85.74%对77.99%,p = 0.0003)。虽然总工作完成度没有显著差异,但角色特定文档的JPD完成度更高(3.47 vs. 2.94, p = 0.0052)。角色特定文档系统提高了作业完成度,减少了遗漏的JPD。尽管病人减少了,但新系统被证明更有效,这表明有可能得到更广泛的采用。未来的研究应探讨文献方法对临床结果和操作指标的影响。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal for Healthcare Quality
Journal for Healthcare Quality HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
期刊介绍: The Journal for Healthcare Quality (JHQ), a peer-reviewed journal, is an official publication of the National Association for Healthcare Quality. JHQ is a professional forum that continuously advances healthcare quality practice in diverse and changing environments, and is the first choice for creative and scientific solutions in the pursuit of healthcare quality. It has been selected for coverage in Thomson Reuter’s Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index®, and Current Contents®. The Journal publishes scholarly articles that are targeted to leaders of all healthcare settings, leveraging applied research and producing practical, timely and impactful evidence in healthcare system transformation. The journal covers topics such as: Quality Improvement • Patient Safety • Performance Measurement • Best Practices in Clinical and Operational Processes • Innovation • Leadership • Information Technology • Spreading Improvement • Sustaining Improvement • Cost Reduction • Payment Reform
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信