573 What's in A Name? An Audit of Correct Identification of Patients During Ward-Rounds in A Surgical and Urology Receiving Ward

Aim Clinical governance states that patients should have a named Consultant during their in-patient stay. In our institution, every bed has a whiteboard above it, which mentions the name of the patient and the responsible Consultant. This should correspond with the electronic system, TrakCare. Ouraim was to audit and look into the accuracy of this practice, in order to improve the efficacy of ward-rounds and hence improve patient care and safety. Method Data was collected for general surgery and urology receiving wards over 3 consecutive days and was matched to the data available on the electronic system, TrakCare. Intervention was made in the form of verbal and written communication with the nursing staff and junior doctors. Effect of intervention was assessed 2 weeks later. Results n = 38 bed-boards were assessed. The first cycle of the audit demonstrated that 7 (18.4%) had either incorrect or no entries. The detailed analysis revealed that of these, 2 had no consultant names whereas 5 were incorrect. The second cycle demonstrated a good improvement with only 1(2.6%) bed-boards having incorrect or no names. The third cycle demonstrated sustainable impact with only 1 (2.6%) missing consultant’s name. Conclusions Ward-rounds have been an age-old practice to review patients and are vital to formulate a care plan for patients, particularly in acute settings. It is also important for the patient to know who is providing their care. Wrong or missing entries could compromise patient care and has implications in patient follow up and chasing results. A simple intervention by the nursing and medical staff can improve the quality of care.