Strengths and weaknesses in team communication processes in a UK emergency department setting: findings using the Communication Assessment Tool-Team
dc.contributor.author | Graham, B | |
dc.contributor.author | Zhu, Chengyong | |
dc.contributor.author | Enki, Doyo Gragn | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2016-06-15T09:26:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2016-06 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0969-9546 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1473-5695 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10026.1/4902 | |
dc.description.abstract |
<jats:sec> <jats:title>Introduction</jats:title> <jats:p>Identifying weaknesses in emergency department (ED) communication may highlight areas where quality improvement may be beneficial. This study explores whether the Communication Assessment Tool-Team (CAT-T) survey can identify communication strengths and weaknesses in a UK setting.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Objectives</jats:title> <jats:p>This study aimed to determine the frequency of patient responses for each item on the CAT-T survey and to compare the proportion of responses according to patient and operational characteristics.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>Adults presenting to the minors area of a semi-urban ED between April and May 2015 were included. Those lacking capacity or in custody were excluded. Multivariate analysis identified associations between responses and demographic/operational characteristics.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>A total of 407/526 eligible patients responded (77.3%). Respondents were mostly White British (93.9%), with a median age of 45 years. Most responses were obtained during daytime hours (84.2% between 08 : 00 and 18 : 00). The median reported times to triage, assessment and disposition were 15, 35 and 90 min, respectively. Items most frequently rated as ‘very good’/‘excellent’ (strengths) were ‘ambulance staff treated me with respect’ (86.7%), ED staff ‘let me talk without interruptions’ (85%) and ‘paid attention to me’ (83.7%). Items most frequently rated as ‘poor’/‘fair’ (weaknesses) were ‘encouraged me to ask questions’, ‘reception treated me with respect’ (10.4%) and ‘staff showed an interest in my health’ (6.8%). Arrival time, analgesia at triage and time to assessment were associated with significantly increased odds of positive perception of team communication for a range of items.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title> <jats:p>The CAT-T survey may be used within a UK setting to identify discrete strengths and weaknesses in ED team communication.</jats:p> </jats:sec> | |
dc.format.extent | e1-e5 | |
dc.format.medium | ||
dc.language | en | |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) | |
dc.subject | emergency department | |
dc.subject | emergency department management | |
dc.subject | emergency department operations | |
dc.subject | management | |
dc.subject | quality assurance | |
dc.title | Strengths and weaknesses in team communication processes in a UK emergency department setting: findings using the Communication Assessment Tool-Team | |
dc.type | journal-article | |
dc.type | Article | |
plymouth.author-url | https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000423265400001&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=11bb513d99f797142bcfeffcc58ea008 | |
plymouth.issue | 6 | |
plymouth.volume | 24 | |
plymouth.publication-status | Accepted | |
plymouth.journal | European Journal of Emergency Medicine | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1097/mej.0000000000000395 | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Faculty of Health | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Faculty of Health/School of Nursing and Midwifery | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/REF 2021 Researchers by UoA/UoA03 Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Research Groups | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Health and Community | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED) | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Research Groups/Institute of Translational and Stratified Medicine (ITSMED)/CBBB | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Users by role | |
plymouth.organisational-group | /Plymouth/Users by role/Academics | |
dc.publisher.place | England | |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2016-03-07 | |
dc.rights.embargodate | 2017-3-7 | |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1473-5695 | |
dc.rights.embargoperiod | 12 months | |
rioxxterms.versionofrecord | 10.1097/mej.0000000000000395 | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.uri | http://www.rioxx.net/licenses/under-embargo-all-rights-reserved | |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2016-06 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review |