4.6 Article

Interdisciplinary communication in the intensive care unit

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
Volume 98, Issue 3, Pages 347-352

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/ael372

Keywords

intensive care; organization and administration; interdisciplinary communication; patient care planning; patient care team; safety management

Categories

Funding

  1. Chief Scientist Office [HSRU2] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Patient safety research has shown poor communication among intensive care unit (ICU) nurses and doctors to be a common causal factor underlying critical incidents in intensive care. This study examines whether ICU doctors and nurses have a shared perception of interdisciplinary communication in the UK ICU. Methods. Cross-sectional survey of ICU nurses and doctors in four UK hospitals using a previously established measure of ICU interdisciplinary collaboration. Results. A sample of 48 doctors and 136 nurses (47% response rate) from four ICUs responded to the survey. Nurses and doctors were found to have differing perceptions of interdisciplinary communication, with nurses reporting lower levels of communication openness between nurses and doctors. Compared with senior doctors, trainee doctors also reported lower levels of communication openness between doctors. A regression path analysis revealed that communication openness among ICU team members predicted the degree to which individuals reported understanding their patient care goals (R-adj(2) = 0.17). It also showed that perceptions of the quality of unit leadership predicted open communication. Conclusions. Members of ICU teams have divergent perceptions of their communication with one another. Communication openness among team members is also associated with the degree to which they understand patient care goals. It is necessary to create an atmosphere where team members feel they can communicate openly without fear of reprisal or embarrassment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available