FTP8.5 Patients Named Consultant: Who is the patient under?

Abstract

Abstract Aims As per the Francis report patients must have a named clinician assigned to them. Knowledge of named consultant prevents confusion for medical staff and patient’s alike. This study assessed named consultant discrepancies between in patient lists (nursing/medical), electronic patient record (EPR) and patient knowledge. Methods Data was collected from doctors/nursing list, EPR and patients themselves on general surgical wards. Patients lacking capacity were excluded and reasonable adjustments made for those with difficulty communicating. The following interventions were implemented: results emailed to relevant staff, findings presented at doctor's teaching, posters in the ward office and marker pens made available. Interventions were re-audited at 12 days. Results Round 1: 52 patients. 63% had the correct consultant name on EPR, nursing and medical lists. 19% had named consultant over their bed space. 44% could name and a further 10% could describe their named consultant. Round 2: 38 patients. 68% had the correct consultant name on EPR, nursing and medical lists. 37% had named consultant over their bed space. 50% could name and a further 8% could describe their named consultant. Conclusions Despite improvement; only 1:2 patients could name their consultant, 1:3 have consultant name over their bed and 1:3 have some discrepancy in named consultant on EPR or medical/nursing list. Elective patients were most likely to know their consultant so future interventions should focus on emergency admissions. Other interventions should involve clerical staff, formal introduction of consultant to patients and ensuring on call consultant is known to the nursing team on ward.