Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2019; 223(02): 92-98
DOI: 10.1055/a-0651-5162
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Communication in The Clinical Routine of Neonatologists

Kommunikation im klinischen Alltag neonatologischer Intensivmedizin
Nele Börner
1   Department of Neonatology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Stefanie Mache
2   Center for Psychosocial Medicine, Department of Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany
,
Cristian Scutaru
3   Business Division IT, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Boris Metze
1   Department of Neonatology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
,
Christoph Bührer
1   Department of Neonatology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

received 04 May 2018

accepted 21 June 2018

Publication Date:
29 August 2018 (online)

Abstract

Introduction Communication is essential to clinical routine, especially in NICUs with their vulnerable patients and the special team caring for them. Communication breakdowns and resulting treatment errors are described in the literature. The aim of this study is to provide an initial quantitative assessment of medical communication in a NICU.

Methods For task analysis, 15 Level III-NICU physicians were accompanied for 60 days in early and late shifts; each physician completed the COPSOQ questionnaire. Recorded tasks were assigned to main task categories and subcategories.

Results A total of 550 h of main and 100 h of secondary tasks were recorded, on average 9 h daily. The most time-consuming main activity was “Communication” (3 h), followed by “Indirect care/Administration” (2 h) and “Direct patient care” (1.5 h). “Communication” mainly consisted of discussions with colleagues and during early shifts. At 2 min, communication with nursing personnel during rounds was especially low. Communication showed a negative correlation to physician job satisfaction.

Discussion This work shows the suspected high proportion of communication in a NICU, especially among physicians themselves. The effectiveness of this communication is not assessable. However, a low proportion of communication with nursing staff is noticeable and reflects the variabiliy in team communication. Improvement of communication is necessary through training on and the application of existing techniques for handoffs and rounds.

Zusammenfassung

Einleitung Kommunikation ist essentiell im Klinikalltag, das gilt auch für NICUs mit ihren fragilen Patienten und dem sie betreuenden Team. Kommunikationsprobleme und resultierende Behandlungsfehler sind in der Literatur beschrieben. Ziel dieser Arbeit ist eine erste quantitative Erhebung ärztlicher Kommunikation auf einer neonatologischen Intensivstation.

Methodik Für die Tätigkeitsanalyse wurden 15 Ärzte einer Level 1-NICU für 60 Tage in Früh- und Spätschicht begleitet und beantworteten einmalig den COPSOQ-Fragebogen zur Analyse psychosozialer Faktoren ihrer Arbeit. Die erfassten Tätigkeiten wurden den Haupt- und Unterkategorien zugeordnet.

Ergebnisse Insgesamt wurden 550 Stunden Haupt- und 100 Stunden Nebentätigkeiten erfasst, durchschnittlich 9 Stunden täglich. Die häufigste Tätigkeit war „Besprechungen“ (3 Stunden), gefolgt von „Indirekter Patientenbehandlung/ Administration“ (2 Stunden) und „Direkter Patiententätigkeit“ (1,5 Stunden). Besprechungen bestanden v. a. aus Gesprächen mit Kollegen, während Frühdiensten und deutlich seltener mit dem Pflegepersonal. Mit 2 Min war der Kommunikationsanteil mit dem Pflegepersonal in Visiten besonders gering. Kommunikation korrelierte negativ mit der mittels COPSOQ erhobenen insgesamt guten Arbeitszufriedenheit der Ärzte.

Diskussion Diese Arbeit weist wie erwartet einen hohen Anteil von Kommunikation am Alltag einer NICU nach, v. a. unter Ärzten. Auch wenn Effektivität der Kommunikation nicht beurteilbar ist, fällt der geringe Anteil der Kommunikation mit dem Pflegepersonal auf und spiegelt die unterschiedliche Wahrnehmung der Teamkommunikation wider. Eine Verbesserung der Kommunikation ist nötig, durch Nutzung und Training existierender Techniken, wie z. B. Anwendung von Standards, vorhandener Technologien und Reduktion von Umgebungseinflüssen in Übergaben, Visiten. Weitere Studien zu Qualität und Verbesserung der Kommunikation sind notwendig.

Condensed Content

 
  • References

  • 1 Alvarez G, Coiera E. Interdisciplinary communication: An uncharted source of medical error?. J Crit Care 2006; 21: 236-242 discussion 242
  • 2 Eisendrath SJ, Link N, Matthay M. Intensive care unit: How stressful for physicians?. Crit Care Med 1986; 14: 95-98
  • 3 Snijders C, van Lingen RA, Molendijk A. et al. Incidents and errors in neonatal intensive care: a review of the literature. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2007; 92: F391-F398
  • 4 Gephart SM. The art of effective handoffs: what is the evidence?. Adv Neonatal Care 2012; 12: 37-39
  • 5 Kaushal R, Bates DW, Landrigan C. et al. Medication errors and adverse drug events in pediatric inpatients. JAMA 2001; 285: 2114-2120
  • 6 Krzyzaniak N, Bajorek B. Medication safety in neonatal care: a review of medication errors among neonates. Ther Adv Drug Saf 2016; 7: 102-119
  • 7 Li L, Hains I, Hordern T. et al. What do ICU doctors do? A multisite time and motion study of the clinical work patterns of registrars. Crit Care Resusc 2015; 17: 159-166
  • 8 Weigl M, Muller A, Zupanc A. et al. Participant observation of time allocation, direct patient contact and simultaneous activities in hospital physicians. BMC Health Serv Res 2009; 9: 110
  • 9 Weigl M, Muller A, Zupanc A. et al. Hospital doctors’ workflow interruptions and activities: an observation study. BMJ Qual Saf 2011; 20: 491-497
  • 10 Alvarez G, Coiera E. Interruptive communication patterns in the intensive care unit ward round. Int J Med Inform 2005; 74: 791-796
  • 11 Tipping MD, Forth VE, Magill DB. et al. Systematic review of time studies evaluating physicians in the hospital setting. J Hosp Med 2010; 5: 353-359
  • 12 Chisholm CD, Collison EK, Nelson DR. et al. Emergency department workplace interruptions: are emergency physicians “interrupt-driven” and “multitasking”?. Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7: 1239-1243
  • 13 Rochefort CM, Clarke SP. Nurses’ work environments, care rationing, job outcomes, and quality of care on neonatal units. J Adv Nurs 2010; 66: 2213-2224
  • 14 Braithwaite M. Nurse burnout and stress in the NICU. Adv Neonatal Care 2008; 8: 343-347
  • 15 Brodsky D, Gupta M, Quinn M. et al. Building collaborative teams in neonatal intensive care. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22: 374-382
  • 16 Gray JE, Davis DA, Pursley DM. et al. Network analysis of team structure in the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics 2010; 125: e1460-e1467
  • 17 Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A. et al. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire – a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health 2005; 31: 438-449
  • 18 Nübling M. US Hasselhorn HM. et al. Methoden zur Erfassung psychischer Belastungen, Erprobung eines Messinstrumentes (COPSOQ). In Dortmund/Berlin/Dresden: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin; 2005
  • 19 Becker G, Kempf DE, Xander CJ. et al. Four minutes for a patient, twenty seconds for a relative – an observational study at a university hospital. BMC Health Serv Res 2010; 10: 94
  • 20 Ammenwerth E, Spotl HP. The time needed for clinical documentation versus direct patient care. A work-sampling analysis of physiciansʼ activities. Methods Inf Med 2009; 48: 84-91
  • 21 Westbrook JI, Ampt A, Kearney L. et al. All in a day's work: An observational study to quantify how and with whom doctors on hospital wards spend their time. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 506-509
  • 22 Nübling M, Vomstein M, Nübling T et al. Erfassung psychischer Belastungen anhand eines erprobten Fragebogens – Aufbau der COPSOQ-Datenbank (2011). Im Internet: www.copsoq-datenbank.de Stand: 01.02.2018
  • 23 Moshe M, Perry ZH, Salzer L. et al. Work satisfaction, quality of life, and leisure time of neonatology fellows and senior neonatologists in Israel. Isr J Health Policy Res 2012; 1: 50
  • 24 Profit J, Etchegaray J, Petersen LA. et al. Neonatal intensive care unit safety culture varies widely. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2012; 97: F120-F126
  • 25 Raymond M, Harrison MC. The structured communication tool SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) improves communication in neonatology. S Afr Med J 2014; 104: 850-852
  • 26 Dodek PM, Raboud J. Explicit approach to rounds in an ICU improves communication and satisfaction of providers. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29: 1584-1588
  • 27 Gephart SM, Cholette M. P.U.R.E. communication: A strategy to improve care-coordination for high risk birth. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev 2012; 12: 109-114
  • 28 Pronovost P, Berenholtz S, Dorman T. et al. Improving communication in the ICU using daily goals. J Crit Care 2003; 18: 71-75
  • 29 Barbosa VM. Teamwork in the neonatal intensive care unit. Phys Occup Ther Pediatr 2013; 33: 5-26
  • 30 Agarwal S, Frankel L, Tourner S. et al. Improving communication in a pediatric intensive care unit using daily patient goal sheets. J Crit Care 2008; 23: 227-235
  • 31 Pastores SM, O'Connor MF, Kleinpell RM. et al. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident duty hour new standards: history, changes, and impact on staffing of intensive care units. Crit Care Med 2011; 39: 2540-2549