Non-medical prescribing on a nurse consultant-led elderly care ward

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 566-566
Author(s):  
Qun Wang
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i12-i42
Author(s):  
K Suseeharan ◽  
T Vedutla

Abstract Background The Royal College of Physician guidelines (2011) identified handover as a “high risk step” in patient care, especially in recent times within the NHS where shift patterns lead to more disjointed care with a high reliance on effective handover by all staff members. Introduction At Cannock Chase hospital, Fairoak ward is an elderly care rehabilitation ward where there is a large multi-disciplinary team. While working on the ward as doctors we noticed that handover between the MDT was poor. Anecdotal evidence from both doctors and nurses felt that this was a high risk area in need of improvement. Aim to improve handover between doctors and nurses on this elderly care ward. Method To measure the quality of current handover practice we did a questionnaire. A total of 12 questionnaires were completed which showed that 92% of staff felt that handover on the ward was very poor and 50% preferred both written and verbal handover. We measured the number of tasks verbally handed over between doctors and nurses over 3 days. On average 65% of the tasks were completed. We then made the below interventions and re-audited to see if there was any improvement. Interventions over 3 week period: Results Questionnaire: Measuring task completion after interventions; Conclusion This project has made a positive change qualitatively and quantitatively to the ward handover practice. Staff satisfaction regarding handover has improved and the number of “handed over” tasks completed daily has significantly improved. The written handover sheet had poor utilisation by staff but in 4 months we are going to re-audit and trial the handover sheet again to further improve service delivery. We hope this improvement will have a positive impact on patient care on this elderly care ward.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 100165
Author(s):  
R.D. Wenlock ◽  
M. Tausan ◽  
R. Mann ◽  
W. Garr ◽  
R. Preston ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 63 (6) ◽  
pp. e5-e6
Author(s):  
Pamela Sarkar ◽  
Sani Aliyu ◽  
Margaret Gillham

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. i14-i17
Author(s):  
R A Hakim ◽  
M Ali ◽  
I Wijenyake

Abstract Background To improve the rate of documentation on bowel charts on an elderly care ward with a significant percentage of patients suffering from dementia. Importance As a junior doctor working on an elderly care ward with patients who often had memory problems and were unable to recall their bowel patterns, it was extremely challenging to establish whether a particular patient has constipation or diarrhoea. Constipation in an elderly patient can lead to multiple complications like urinary retention, intestinal obstruction and often decreased oral intake. Methods An audit was carried out to see the rate of completion of the Bowel charts on the ward. Only about 23% of the bowel charts on the ward were complete in the initial survey. Then interventions were introduced in steps and three more audits were done. At each step, we were able to show how the interventions introduced changed the degree of completion of the bowel charts. Outcome We have seen a marked improvement of 37% since the start of the project 5 months ago. From 23% to 60% completion of bowel charts. There appeared to be a sustained change only falling short at the weekends (due to staffing issues) Overall awareness had increased vastly. We were able to make a measurable change and improvement in the quality of care provided.


Author(s):  
Sarah Rees ◽  
Ashley Akbari ◽  
Huw Collins ◽  
Amanda Marchant ◽  
Daniel Thayer ◽  
...  

IntroductionInpatient datasets in the UK are primarily organised by episodes (periods of care under an individual consultant), while researchers often want to measure admissions (periods of stay in hospital). We developed a standardized method for identifying admissions in inpatient data, while accounting for differences between the four UK nations. Objectives and ApproachAll UK inpatient datasets include date variables, permitting chronological sequencing of episodes. They include flags describing whether an episode is a transfer of care, although structures and definitions differ. Data quality is variable leading to concurrent and overlapping episodes, duplication and “orphan” or “childless” transfer episodes, where no originating or destination episode can be identified. Our objective was to define a method for classifying individual episodes into a continuous period of stay in hospital, which would be consistently applicable to the analysis of inpatient datasets of all four UK nations, while prioritising clinical meaningfulness. Three permutations were considered. ResultsFor each permutation, episodes for an individual were linked when they related to the same individual and met the following criteria: Zero or one day gap between episode end and subsequent episode start Evidence of transfer according to admission method or discharge destination variables Episode overlapping or completely nested within another episode Permutations: a and b a only a and c Permutation three was adopted, as it was felt to be the most clinically meaningful approach, was not dependent on accurate recording of transfers and captured nested or overlapping episodes, which may occur for example when a patient is in a long-stay psychiatric or elderly care ward but requires care from a different specialty. Importantly it permitted consistent analysis of episodes across all UK nations. Conclusion/ImplicationsThe output of this work provides a useful guide for the classification of inpatient episodes into more clinically meaningful periods of care, and is applicable to the inpatient datasets of all four UK nations. It describes important issues to consider when classifying episodes of care, particularly relating to data quality.


2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (OCE6) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Behrman ◽  
K. Lau ◽  
M. A. Gosney ◽  
O. B. Kennedy ◽  
L. Methven

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (3) ◽  
pp. 28-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. A. O’Connor ◽  
P. E. Cotter ◽  
M. Kingston ◽  
C. Twomey ◽  
D. O’Mahony

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document