{"title":"面向结构化会诊医生主导的病房查房的泌尿外科检查表","authors":"Jennie Han, J. Gibbard, C. Cutting, Elsawi Osman","doi":"10.36648/1989-5216.13.1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Formulating a comprehensive, practical, and urology-focused ward round checklist to enhance safety, efficiency and clear documentation for the Urology ward team when reviewing in-patients. Design: Identification of important parameters which should be addressed in every patient interaction. FIASCO – VH was coined for ease: • Fluid balance • Investigations • Intravenous access • Antibiotics • Analgesia • Stool • Catheter status • Observations • Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment • Home and follow up. Baseline measurement followed by implementation of the checklist and completion of three plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Setting: Single-centre district general hospital within the United Kingdom Participants: 279 ward round interactions with Urology inpatients Intervention: Implementation of the ward round checklist Main outcome measures: Adherence to parameters identified in the urology checklist Results: Stool (23.5%) and pain (30.6%) were worst assessed at baseline, with median 39.3% parameters assessed over all interactions. Significant improvement in assessed parameters after first (median 74.3%), second (median 84.0%), and third cycles (median 100%). These were associated with positive patient outcomes. There was discrepancy between factors verbally addressed and clinically documented (median 84.0% to 57.7% after second cycle). A dedicated third cycle reduced this gap (median 100% to 97%). 100% junior doctors surveyed believed the checklist has enabled addressing of factors which might have otherwise been missed. Conclusion: The use of a comprehensive, urology-focused, easy-to-memorise ward round checklist is feasible and led to sustained, well-documented improvements in all measured aspects of patients’ care, and perceived level of care by the team.","PeriodicalId":92003,"journal":{"name":"Archives of medicine","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Urology Checklist towards a Structured Consultant-Led Ward Round\",\"authors\":\"Jennie Han, J. Gibbard, C. Cutting, Elsawi Osman\",\"doi\":\"10.36648/1989-5216.13.1.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Formulating a comprehensive, practical, and urology-focused ward round checklist to enhance safety, efficiency and clear documentation for the Urology ward team when reviewing in-patients. Design: Identification of important parameters which should be addressed in every patient interaction. FIASCO – VH was coined for ease: • Fluid balance • Investigations • Intravenous access • Antibiotics • Analgesia • Stool • Catheter status • Observations • Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment • Home and follow up. Baseline measurement followed by implementation of the checklist and completion of three plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Setting: Single-centre district general hospital within the United Kingdom Participants: 279 ward round interactions with Urology inpatients Intervention: Implementation of the ward round checklist Main outcome measures: Adherence to parameters identified in the urology checklist Results: Stool (23.5%) and pain (30.6%) were worst assessed at baseline, with median 39.3% parameters assessed over all interactions. Significant improvement in assessed parameters after first (median 74.3%), second (median 84.0%), and third cycles (median 100%). These were associated with positive patient outcomes. There was discrepancy between factors verbally addressed and clinically documented (median 84.0% to 57.7% after second cycle). A dedicated third cycle reduced this gap (median 100% to 97%). 100% junior doctors surveyed believed the checklist has enabled addressing of factors which might have otherwise been missed. Conclusion: The use of a comprehensive, urology-focused, easy-to-memorise ward round checklist is feasible and led to sustained, well-documented improvements in all measured aspects of patients’ care, and perceived level of care by the team.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of medicine\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36648/1989-5216.13.1.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36648/1989-5216.13.1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Urology Checklist towards a Structured Consultant-Led Ward Round
Objective: Formulating a comprehensive, practical, and urology-focused ward round checklist to enhance safety, efficiency and clear documentation for the Urology ward team when reviewing in-patients. Design: Identification of important parameters which should be addressed in every patient interaction. FIASCO – VH was coined for ease: • Fluid balance • Investigations • Intravenous access • Antibiotics • Analgesia • Stool • Catheter status • Observations • Venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment • Home and follow up. Baseline measurement followed by implementation of the checklist and completion of three plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles. Setting: Single-centre district general hospital within the United Kingdom Participants: 279 ward round interactions with Urology inpatients Intervention: Implementation of the ward round checklist Main outcome measures: Adherence to parameters identified in the urology checklist Results: Stool (23.5%) and pain (30.6%) were worst assessed at baseline, with median 39.3% parameters assessed over all interactions. Significant improvement in assessed parameters after first (median 74.3%), second (median 84.0%), and third cycles (median 100%). These were associated with positive patient outcomes. There was discrepancy between factors verbally addressed and clinically documented (median 84.0% to 57.7% after second cycle). A dedicated third cycle reduced this gap (median 100% to 97%). 100% junior doctors surveyed believed the checklist has enabled addressing of factors which might have otherwise been missed. Conclusion: The use of a comprehensive, urology-focused, easy-to-memorise ward round checklist is feasible and led to sustained, well-documented improvements in all measured aspects of patients’ care, and perceived level of care by the team.