Search

Objective: To examine the content, quantity, and quality of multidisciplinary team documentation of 'communication' in hospital progress notes of patients with communication disability, and to explore the relationship of this documentation to patient safety. Design: Retrospective chart review involving a descriptive analysis and a qualitative content analysis of the progress notes. Setting: Acute medical and rehabilitation wards in two regional hospitals in one health district in Australia. Participants: Eight patients with communication disability who had experienced documented patient safety incidents in hospital. Methods: In total, 906 progress note entries about communication during 38 hospital admissions were extracted from eight patient's charts; written by staff in 11 different health disciplines. Data were analysed descriptively according to quantity, and qualitatively according to the content. Results: Four content categories of meaning in progress note entries relating to communication were (1) use of communication diagnostic and impairment terms; (2) notes on the patient's communicative function; (3) reports of the topic or content of the patient's communication attempts; and (4) references to third parties communicating for the patient. Communication-related information was often brief, unclear, and/or inaccurate. Descriptions of communicative function and recommended strategies for successful communication were often lacking. Conclusion: The suboptimal documentation of patient communication in progress notes may contribute to the higher risk of patient safety incidents for hospital patients with communication disability. Increased accuracy in documenting communication disability and function in progress notes might assist staff in communicating with these patients and improve the quality and safety of their care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Manual data-entry of handwritten laboratory test requests into electronic information systems has implications for data accuracy. This study sought to identify the types and number of errors occurring for handwritten serology test requests received from outpatient clinics. Methods: A 15-day audit at a serology laboratory in Sydney, Australia, compared the content of all transcribed serology outpatient test requests in the laboratory information system with the handwritten request form. Results: One or more errors were detected in 67/627 (10.7%) audited requests (N=68 errors). Fifty-one of the errors (75.0%) were transcription errors: the wrong test was transcribed in 40/68 cases (58.8%) -- ten of these occurred when the abbreviations 'HBsAb' and 'HBsAg' were confounded for one another -- and transcribed requests were missing a test in 11/68 cases (16.2%). The remaining 17 non-transcription errors (25.0%) described request forms not signed by the ordering clinician, mislabelled specimens, and wrong tests due to computer algorithm errors. Conclusions: Manual data-entry of handwritten serology requests is an error-prone process. Electronic ordering has the potential to eliminate illegible handwriting and transcription errors, thus improving data accuracy in hospital information systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]