Cargando…
Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback
We aimed to establish whether recall of elements of the neurological examination can be improved by use of a simple patient assessment score. In a previous study we demonstrated that in-patients referred to neurology at two United Kingdom (UK) hospitals were not fully examined prior to referral; we...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
British Publishing Group
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4693104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26734445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u209610.w4063 |
_version_ | 1782407324328001536 |
---|---|
author | Appleton, Jason Philip Ilinca, Andreea Lindgren, Arne Puschmann, Andreas Hbahbih, Majed A. Siddiqui, Khurram de Silva, Rajith Jones, Matthew Butterworth, Richard willmot, mark Hayton, Tom Lunn, Michael Nicholl, David |
author_facet | Appleton, Jason Philip Ilinca, Andreea Lindgren, Arne Puschmann, Andreas Hbahbih, Majed A. Siddiqui, Khurram de Silva, Rajith Jones, Matthew Butterworth, Richard willmot, mark Hayton, Tom Lunn, Michael Nicholl, David |
author_sort | Appleton, Jason Philip |
collection | PubMed |
description | We aimed to establish whether recall of elements of the neurological examination can be improved by use of a simple patient assessment score. In a previous study we demonstrated that in-patients referred to neurology at two United Kingdom (UK) hospitals were not fully examined prior to referral; we therefore designed a larger quality improvement report with 80% power to detect a 10% increase in tendon hammer or ophthalmoscope use following an educational intervention. In-patients referred to neurology over a four month period (in hospitals in the UK (10), Jordan (1), Sweden (2), and the United Arab Emirates (1)) were asked whether they recalled being examined with a tendon hammer (T), ophthalmoscope (O), and stethoscope (S) since admission. The results were disseminated to local medical teams using various techniques (including Grand Round presentations, email, posters, discounted equipment). Data were then collected for a further four month period post-intervention. Pre-intervention and post-intervention data were available for 11 centres with 407 & 391 patients in each arm respectively. Median age of patients was 51 (range 13-100) and 49 (range 16-95) years respectively, with 44.72% and 44.76% being male in each group. 264 patients (64.86%) recalled being examined with a tendon hammer in the pre-intervention arm, which significantly improved to 298 (76.21%) (p<0.001). Only 119 patients (29.24%) recollected examination with an ophthalmoscope pre-intervention, which significantly improved to 149 (38.11%)(p=0.009). The majority of patients (321 (78.87%)) pre-intervention recalled examination with a stethoscope, which significantly improved to 330 (84.4%) to a lesser extent (p=0.045). Results indicate that most patients are not fully examined prior to neurology referral yet a simple assessment score and educational intervention can improve recall of elements of the neurological examination and thus the likelihood of patients being examined neurologically. This is the largest and - to our knowledge - only study to assess this issue. This has implications for national neurological educators. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4693104 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | British Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-46931042016-01-05 Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback Appleton, Jason Philip Ilinca, Andreea Lindgren, Arne Puschmann, Andreas Hbahbih, Majed A. Siddiqui, Khurram de Silva, Rajith Jones, Matthew Butterworth, Richard willmot, mark Hayton, Tom Lunn, Michael Nicholl, David BMJ Qual Improv Rep BMJ Quality Improvement Programme We aimed to establish whether recall of elements of the neurological examination can be improved by use of a simple patient assessment score. In a previous study we demonstrated that in-patients referred to neurology at two United Kingdom (UK) hospitals were not fully examined prior to referral; we therefore designed a larger quality improvement report with 80% power to detect a 10% increase in tendon hammer or ophthalmoscope use following an educational intervention. In-patients referred to neurology over a four month period (in hospitals in the UK (10), Jordan (1), Sweden (2), and the United Arab Emirates (1)) were asked whether they recalled being examined with a tendon hammer (T), ophthalmoscope (O), and stethoscope (S) since admission. The results were disseminated to local medical teams using various techniques (including Grand Round presentations, email, posters, discounted equipment). Data were then collected for a further four month period post-intervention. Pre-intervention and post-intervention data were available for 11 centres with 407 & 391 patients in each arm respectively. Median age of patients was 51 (range 13-100) and 49 (range 16-95) years respectively, with 44.72% and 44.76% being male in each group. 264 patients (64.86%) recalled being examined with a tendon hammer in the pre-intervention arm, which significantly improved to 298 (76.21%) (p<0.001). Only 119 patients (29.24%) recollected examination with an ophthalmoscope pre-intervention, which significantly improved to 149 (38.11%)(p=0.009). The majority of patients (321 (78.87%)) pre-intervention recalled examination with a stethoscope, which significantly improved to 330 (84.4%) to a lesser extent (p=0.045). Results indicate that most patients are not fully examined prior to neurology referral yet a simple assessment score and educational intervention can improve recall of elements of the neurological examination and thus the likelihood of patients being examined neurologically. This is the largest and - to our knowledge - only study to assess this issue. This has implications for national neurological educators. British Publishing Group 2015-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC4693104/ /pubmed/26734445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u209610.w4063 Text en © 2015, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode |
spellingShingle | BMJ Quality Improvement Programme Appleton, Jason Philip Ilinca, Andreea Lindgren, Arne Puschmann, Andreas Hbahbih, Majed A. Siddiqui, Khurram de Silva, Rajith Jones, Matthew Butterworth, Richard willmot, mark Hayton, Tom Lunn, Michael Nicholl, David Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
title | Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
title_full | Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
title_fullStr | Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
title_short | Improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
title_sort | improving the likelihood of neurology patients being examined using patient feedback |
topic | BMJ Quality Improvement Programme |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4693104/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26734445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjquality.u209610.w4063 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT appletonjasonphilip improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT ilincaandreea improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT lindgrenarne improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT puschmannandreas improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT hbahbihmajed improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT asiddiquikhurram improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT desilvarajith improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT jonesmatthew improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT butterworthrichard improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT willmotmark improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT haytontom improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT lunnmichael improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback AT nicholldavid improvingthelikelihoodofneurologypatientsbeingexaminedusingpatientfeedback |