The evaluation of a communication tool within an acute healthcare organization
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Striving to ensure clear, concise and consistent communication, the Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations (SBAR) tool was adopted for use within a multisite acute healthcare organization. Objective: To evaluate the use and effectiveness of the SBAR tool on communication within a multisite acute healthcare organization. Methods: This longitudinal study was conducted over one year and was comprised of four phases including: Phase1) pre-implementation, Phase 2) education sessions, Phase 3) post-implementation, and Phase 4) final evaluation. The study used a convenience sample that included all multidisciplinary participants from Lakeridge Health. Results: The entire sample in this study consisted of 705 multidisciplinary participants. The number of participants that completed surveys per phase was as follows: phase 1, n = 259, phase 3, n = 209, and phase 4, n = 237. Post implementation of the SBAR tool, participants identified that the tool positively influenced the level of good communication with patients and families. 59.8% participants felt that good communication existed within their function, 47.4% identified that good communication existed within their discipline, 45% recognized that the SBAR tool would work on their units and 53.6% participants identified that they were familiar with the SBAR tool. During the final evaluation of the SBAR tool, the majority of respondent 66.2% believed the tool would reduce the potential for errors, 70% felt that the SBAR process was useful in facilitating communication with other team members or patients, 53.7% of participants felt communication flow between members of their area or discipline had improved since the implementation of SBAR, 52.1% of participants felt communication flow between themselves and their colleagues had improved since the implementation of SBAR and 71.7% of participants identified that they were satisfied when using SBAR that their message was received and understood. Conclusion: This study is the first study to investigate the use of the SBAR tool across a multisite acute healthcare organization. The tool demonstrated positive results in relation to improving communication with patients and families within the organization. As patients and families are key members of the healthcare team, this finding is important. Although not meeting with a significant change, all of the questions that examined communication, i.e. good communication within function and good interdisciplinary communication, had a positive finding after the implement-tation of the SBAR tool. This study examined the importance of leadership to create and sustain a change and the relevance of the culture that people are working within to advance quality within an organization.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».