RESEARCH ARTICLE

Who’s My Doctor? Using an Electronic Tool toImprove Team Member Identification on anInpatient Pediatrics TeamAmit Singh, MD,a Kyung E. Rhee, MD, MSc, MA,b Jesse J. Brennan, MA,c Cynthia Kuelbs, MD,d,e Robert El-Kareh, MD, MPH, MS,f Erin S. Fisher, MDd,g

A B S T R A C T OBJECTIVES: Increase parent/caregiver ability to correctly identify the attending in charge anddefine terminology of treatment team members (TTMs). We hypothesized that correct TTMidentification would increase with use of an electronic communication tool. Secondary aimsincluded assessing subjects’ satisfaction with and trust of TTM and interest in computer activitiesduring hospitalization.

METHODS: Two similar groups of parents/legal guardians/primary caregivers of childrenadmitted to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine teaching service with an unplanned first admissionwere surveyed before (Phase 1) and after (Phase 2) implementation of a novel electronic medicalrecord (EMR)-based tool with names, photos, and definitions of TTMs. Physicians were alsosurveyed only during Phase 1. Surveys assessed TTM identification, satisfaction, trust, and computeruse.

RESULTS: More subjects in Phase 2 correctly identified attending physicians by name (71% vs.28%, P , .001) and correctly defined terms intern, resident, and attending (P # .03) compared withPhase 1. Almost all subjects (.79%) and TTMs (.87%) reported that subjects’ ability to identifyTTMs moderately or strongly impacted satisfaction and trust. The majority of subjects expressedinterest in using computers to understand TTMs in each phase.

CONCLUSIONS: Subjects’ ability to correctly identify attending physicians and define TTMs wassignificantly greater for those who used our tool. In our study, subjects reported that TTMidentification impacted aspects of the TTM relationship, yet few could correctly identify TTMs beforetool use. This pilot study showed early success in engaging subjects with the EMR in the hospitaland suggests that families would engage in computer-based activities in this setting.

aDivision of PediatricHospital Medicine,

Department of Pediatrics,Stanford UniversitySchool of Medicine,Palo Alto, California;

bDivision of AcademicGeneral Pediatrics,

Developmental Pediatrics,and Community Health,

and cDepartment ofEmergency Medicine, and

dDivision of PediatricHospital Medicine,

Department of Pediatrics,eInformation Services

Division and fDepartmentof Medicine, University of

California San DiegoSchool of Medicine,

San Diego, California; andgDepartment of Quality

Management, RadyChildren’s Hospital San

Diego, San Diego,California

www.hospitalpediatrics.orgDOI:10.1542/hpeds.2015-0164Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

Address correspondence to Amit T. Singh, 300 Pasteur Dr, MC 5776, Stanford, CA 94305-5776. E-mail: atsingh@stanford.edu

HOSPITAL PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 2154-1663; Online, 2154-1671).

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

FUNDING: No funding was secured for this study.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Dr Singh conceptualized and designed the study and study tool (with support from information systems); Drs Singh and Fisher collectedthe data and drafted the initial manuscript; Drs Singh, Rhee, Kuelbs, El-Kareh, and Fisher interpreted the data; Drs Rhee, Kuelbs,El-Kareh, and Fisher assisted with design of the study; Drs Rhee, Kuelbs, and El-Kareh and Mr Brennan critically reviewed themanuscript; Mr Brennan performed data analysis and assisted with data interpretation; Dr Fisher assisted with conceptualization of thestudy; and all authors approved the final manuscript as submitted.

HOSPITAL PEDIATRICS Volume 6, Issue 3, March 2016 157

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

Patients and families cared for in teachinginstitutions encounter multiple medicalteam members and trainees. In the hospitalsetting, increased trainee duty hourrestrictions and patient care handoffs oftenexacerbate confusion about the identitiesand roles of treatment team members(TTMs).1–3 Additionally, although patients andfamilies deem that it is important to knowthe level of training of their physicians, fewseem to actually know it.2,4–6 In some cases,this lack of identification has had fatalconsequences. One such case involving a15-year-old patient in South Carolina led tostatewide legislative change requiring clearidentification of providers and their roles.7,8

In The Principles of Team-Based Health Care,the Institute of Medicine states, “Since roleson the team vary by both professionalcapability as well as function, patients andtheir caregivers must be fully informed aboutthese roles.”9 Additionally, the Institute ofMedicine’s report Crossing the Quality Chasm:A New Health System for the 21st Centurystates, “the health care system should beresponsive at all times (24 hours a day, everyday).”10 Although there are many studiesshowing improvement in TTM identificationwith use of paper solutions such as cards/handouts with names and photos, these printsolutions may not adequately accomplish thegoal of a real-time, responsive system.11–15

They must be printed often due to thefrequent TTM changes in teaching hospitalsand require physical placement in a specificlocation. This process can becomecumbersome and has many potential failurepoints. Consequently, the electronic medicalrecord (EMR) may provide a novelopportunity to fulfill this need.

Studies have shown that physician use of theEMR poses no barrier to care and isassociated with increased patient satisfaction.Additional studies have noted that patientswant to be involved in the EMR and find itimportant. Most of these reports on patientEMR use have focused on messaging oreducation in the outpatient setting.16–20

The purpose of this study was to develop,implement, and assess the impact of anEMR-linked electronic tool to communicatethe identity (picture with name), title, androle of TTMs in the inpatient setting. We

hypothesized that subjects’ ability to identifythe attending in charge of their children’scare by name and to define TTM roles wouldincrease with use of the tool. Secondaryaims included assessing subjects’satisfaction and trust; TTM opinions onsubjects’ ability to identify team members;and understanding subjects’ usage ofcomputers and preferred methods forcommunication in the hospital setting.

METHODS

This single-site prospective study wascarried out at Rady Children’s Hospital SanDiego (RCHSD) in 2 phases (Phase 1, beforetool use; Phase 2, after tool use) over a17-month period (June 2012 to November2013) on the Pediatric Hospital Medicine(PHM) service. RCHSD is the sole children’shospital in San Diego County, serving severalneighboring counties in Southern Californiawith a catchment of .800 000 children and17 000 annual admissions. Patients from allpayors and demographic groups are served,with 45% Hispanic ethnicity. The PHM servicecares for 98% of all general pediatricinpatients, with .3000 annual admissionsduring the study period. Our interventionused the EMR, which was fully implementedin the inpatient setting by September 2011.Family-centered rounds were not standardpractice during this time and wereinconsistently performed. This project wasapproved by the University of California SanDiego (UCSD) Institutional Review Board.

Tool

The “Who’s My Doctor?” tool (Fig 1) wasdeveloped in conjunction with the RCHSDinformation systems (IS) team utilizing anexisting web-based patient portal directlylinked with the institution’s EMR. This portalhad already been in place in the outpatientsetting and was modified for inpatient usefor this study. The tool’s information(names, pictures, and roles of TTMs) wasauto-populated based on data entered bythe team daily via the EMR. Team memberchanges occurred via the EMR at each shiftchange. TTMs added themselves to adiscrete “treatment team” field in the EMRas part of existing practice. Team memberassignments and changes in the EMR aremandatory for normal daily workflow(writing orders, notes, etc.) and thus this

was not a new procedure. Only informationrelated to the study tool (problem list,primary care provider, TTM information)was made available to the family for thisstudy. Other EMR functionality typically usedin the ambulatory setting was disabled (seeFig 1). An archive of participant photos fromexisting medical staff ID badge data andresidency program photos was created byour IS team. These photos were connectedby IS to the tool in the EMR system.Photo–name pair accuracy was validated bythe principal investigator. The toolautomatically populated the photos for agiven patient based on the TTM assignmentin the EMR. Team member changes weretherefore immediate (real-time); if a subjectaccessed the tool during a time of teammember change, the new member’s datawould be displayed afterward if the patientrefreshed the screen or logged back in. Thetool was therefore a readily availableassistive means by which subjects couldobtain information about their TTMs. No limitwas placed on the amount of tool use toallow subjects to naturally assimilate to it.

Subjects

Subjects were defined as the parents/legalguardians/primary caregivers of patientson the PHM service with an unplanned firsthospital admission during the study period.English- and Spanish-speaking families wereenrolled. The caregiver spending the mosttime at the bedside was asked toparticipate. Subjects were excluded if theprimary caregiver was unavailable or notwilling to sign informed consent or ifpatients were wards of the court or hadever been admitted to RCHSD or anotherteaching (resident trainee) institutionpreviously. The latter 2 requirements wereused to eliminate potential bias fromfamiliarity with RCHSD staff or exposure to ateaching team structure. Participation in thestudy was voluntary. Subjects couldterminate their participation at any time.

In Phase 1, a member of the research teamidentified subjects meeting the inclusioncriteria and obtained informed consent. Theresearch team member then reviewed thesurvey with the subject and answered anyquestions in their preferred language.Subjects then completed the paper survey

158 SINGH et al

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

FIGURE 1 Who’s My Doctor tool example screen shot.

HOSPITAL PEDIATRICS Volume 6, Issue 3, March 2016 159

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

independently. A member of the researchteam was available at any time if subjectsrequired clarification of any survey items.Surveys were collected, recorded, andcoded by a member of the research team.The survey was reviewed when collected,and if some questions were unanswered,the subject was asked if this was intended;if not, they were then asked to complete theblank questions.

In Phase 2, a second similar cohort ofsubjects was identified and approached forconsent using methods as in Phase 1. Afterobtaining consent, subjects were enrolled atthe bedside on the patient portal web site.After instruction, each subject created aunique log-in ID and password to accessand view the tool. Subjects wereencouraged to use the tool as much or aslittle as desired. The tool could be viewedfrom any device with internet access.Secure tablets were provided for studyparticipants who did not have any suchdevices. After at least 24 hours of use andbefore discharge, subjects completed thePhase 2 study survey (see onlineSupplemental Information for full survey).Patients were allowed to use the tool asoften as they liked to help them answersurvey questions.

Treatment Team Members

TTM were defined as physicians in the UCSDPHM Division, UCSD pediatric and medicine/pediatric residents, and pediatric generalnurse practitioners at RCHSD.

Team structure was not changed for thisstudy. Patients are either cared for by a“Resident” (medical students/intern/resident/attending) or “PNP team”(pediatric nurse practitioner/attending) fortheir entire stay. Medical students werepresent on the wards equally in bothphases. However, because of differing wardresponsibilities and schedules, medicalstudents were not included in the study.TTMs were not instructed to change themanner used to introduce themselves topatients and families. TTMs were also notspecifically informed of which patients andfamilies were participating in the study. Toparticipate in the survey, TTMs wereinformed about the study via e-mail andinvited to participate anonymously using an

opt-in consent process. Those whoconsented were then presented with ananonymous electronic survey conducted viaSurvey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA).

Surveys

Basic identifying data collected includedpatient name, medical record number,admission date/time, attending of record, andprincipal diagnosis. The subject survey foreach phase assessed subjects’ ability tocorrectly identify and define roles of theirTTM, and queried level of subject satisfactionand trust. To assess ability to identify theirTTMs, subjects were asked questions such as,“Do you know which doctor is in charge ofyour child’s care in the hospital? If yes, pleasegive name” and “Do you know what it meanswhen a doctor tells you he/she is a ‘resident’?”To assess satisfaction and trust, subjectswere asked, “How much does your ability toidentify the primary treatment team affectyour satisfaction with your child’s care?” and“How much does your ability to identify whoyour treating doctors are affect how you trustthem?” The Phase 2 survey included the samequestions as Phase 1 as well as additionalquestions regarding the tool itself such as,“Did the ‘Who’s my Doctor?’ tool help youanswer any of the questions above?” and“How helpful did you find the tool?” Subjectswere allowed to use the tool as often as theyliked to help them answer survey questions,reflecting real-world use of this assistive tool.

Answer choices for both phases were reportedas yes/no, free-response, or graded Likertscale (see Supplemental Information online forfull surveys). Credit was given for correct lastname if spelled correctly (eg, Singh), or nearlycorrectly (eg, Sing) with regard to attendingidentification. Credit was given for correctlydefining attending, resident, or intern if keyterms were used from the EMR tool during thePhase 2 survey. During the Phase 1 study,credit was given if subjects identified (1)“attendings” as “supervising doctor,” “head ofteam,” “completed residency,” “pediatrician,”or “pediatric specialist”; (2) “residents” as“doctor” or “MD” and “in any/second/thirdyear of training”; (3) “interns” as “doctor” or“MD” and “first-year resident or training”; and(4) “nurse practitioner” as “special nurse,”“nurse with extra training”, or “working withan attending doctor.”

Surveys for both phases asked aboutcomputer and internet usage and collectedbasic demographic data (subject age, race/ethnicity, gender, and highest educationallevel). Wherever possible, questions weretaken from a standardized patientsatisfaction questionnaire used by RCHSD(source, NRC Picker); others were createdfor the purposes of this study and werechosen based on review of existingliterature concerning patient and familyperspectives on team member identificationand expert consensus among the authors.Questions were written to be brief anddirect; however, we did not formally test forvalidity. We piloted our survey with a limitednumber of physicians not involved in thisstudy before study initiation and madechanges based on feedback.

TTMs were asked to report their traininglevel (eg, resident, attending). Surveyquestions assessed TTM perceptions ofsubjects’ ability to identify TTMs, as well asperceptions of the impact of this on patientsatisfaction and trust. TTMs were surveyedonly once (during Phase 1).

To assess perceptions of subject’s ability toidentify TTMs, questions were asked suchas, “Do you feel confident after meeting thepatient and/or family that they can identifyyou by name the following day?” To assessimpact on subject satisfaction, TTMs wereasked, “Do you think having the family knowwho you are and your role impacts theirsatisfaction with the care provided?” (seeSupplemental Information).

Primary outcomes included the change insubjects’ ability to identify attendingphysicians by name and their ability todefine TTM roles between phases.Secondary aims included assessing bothsubjects’ and TTMs’ sense of importance ofteam member identification to subjects, andimpact of this on communication,satisfaction, and trust. We also surveyedsubjects’ computer and internet use andpreferred methods for communication inthe hospital setting.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical calculations were done usingSPSS 11.5 (College Station, TX). Descriptivestatistics were generated for all variables

160 SINGH et al

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

using means and frequencies. Comparisonsof responses from subjects in each phaseas well as TTM responses were performedby using x2 tests (or Fisher exact testswhen assumptions of x2 were not met) andt tests where appropriate.

Prior studies using paper charts orhandouts showed much variability ofsubjects’ baseline identification of TTMs aswell as variable increases afterinterventions.3,11,13,15 Based on previaousstudies, we estimated that our baselinelevel of attending identification (in Phase 1)would be 20%. To detect a 25% difference inproportions with an a of 0.05 and power of0.8, we calculated that we needed to enroll60 subjects in each group.21 All data weredeidentified before analysis.

RESULTSDemographics and Computer Use

In Phase 1, 62 subjects were approached,and 60 subjects were approached inPhase 2. Only 1 subject in each phasesubmitted incomplete surveys, and thoseresponses were not included in the study.The final sample size in each phase was61 and 59, respectively. Demographicsare shown in Table 1. Overall internetaccess varied between phases, but notwith regard to demographics (data notshown).

The TTM survey was completed by 63 of 72(88%) possible respondents, the largestgroup being residents (28/63, 44%). Almostall trainees (47/54, 87%) and PHM facultymembers (13/15, 87%) participated in thestudy.

Subjects

Subjects’ ability to correctly identify theattending by name increased to 71% from28% after tool use (P , .001).Improvements were also noted for correctdefinition of terms intern (P5 .03), resident(P , .03), and attending (P , .001) (Fig 2).Most Phase 2 subjects agreed that the toolhelped them answer the questions relatedto TTM identification and definitions (81%),and almost all (97%) found the toolextremely or somewhat useful. Almost two-thirds (61%) indicated they would not havebeen able to answer the questions withoutthe tool.

Subjects in both phases reported thattheir ability to correctly identify TTMs byname strongly or moderately impactedsatisfaction (84%/95%), communication(87%/93%), and trust (79%/93%). Themajority (72%/84%) indicated they alwayshad trust and confidence in the doctorscaring for their child. These responsesdid not differ significantly bydemographics in either phase. OfPhase 1 subjects dissatisfied with themethod used to inform them of who wascaring for their child (21%), the majority(61%) preferred a nonpaper tool(electronic, organizational chart, orwhiteboard).

In both phases, subjects were given3 options regarding preferred use of acomputer to better understand their child’streatment team: in conjunction with themedical team only, by themselves only, or acombination. The majority (62%/78%)preferred a combination. Almost allexpressed interest in using computers tobetter understand their child’s treatmentteam (95%/98%) and plan of care (84%/97%). Other preferences for in-hospitalcomputer use included internet access,games, and access to medical dictionariesand resources (all ,13%).

Photos were the “most liked” aspect of thetool. Among the responses for

TABLE 1 Demographic Data

Characteristic Phase 1 (n 5 61) Phase 2 (n 5 59) P

n 61 59

Age, years .14

#25 16 (26) 11 (19)

26–35 21 (34) 31 (53)

$36 24 (40) 17 (28)

Gender .53

Male 11 (18) 14 (24)

Female 47 (77) 45 (76)

No response 3 (5) 0

Education .2

High school degree or equivalent 25 (40) 21 (35)

Bachelor’s degree 13 (21) 17 (29)

Master’s degree 6 (10) 7 (12)

Professional degree such as MD, JD 1 (2) 3 (5)

Other 11 (18) 10 (17)

No response 5 (8) 1 (2)

Ethnicity/race .8

Hispanic 28 (46) 24 (40.7)

White 20 (33) 22 (37.3)

Black 5 (8) 5 (8.5)

Asian 2 (3) 3 (5.1)

Other 5 (8) 5 (8.5)

No response 1 (2) 0

Computer use

Overall internet accessa 47 (77) 56 (95) .003

From home 43 (92) 50 (89)

While roaming 35 (75) 31 (55)

To communicate with child’s providerb 12 (20) 16 (29) .52

Values are presented as n (%).a Multiple options for where subjects accessed the internet were allowed. Subsequent lines highlight thesemultiple options provided on the survey indicating access from multiple places (i.e., from home and whileroaming).

b Any communication with child’s primary healthcare provider (ever) was queried.

HOSPITAL PEDIATRICS Volume 6, Issue 3, March 2016 161

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

improvements, answers varied widely butsurrounded further interest in seeingnursing staff photos, learning more aboutTTMs (biographical information), andwanting more medical information abouttheir child. A few sample free responseanswers to the liked aspects of the toolincluded the following: “I loved the fact thatit made me more aware of the levels ofstaff, knowing this allowed me to contact asneeded for questions,” and “I liked that ithad a picture and a name. With all thedifferent people coming into the room, it issometimes hard to remember who is who.”

Treatment Team Members

The majority (40/63, 64%) indicated thatthey “always” introduced themselves usingthe words “intern,” “resident,” or“attending” (Table 2). Very few (9%) of theTTMs surveyed felt confident that subjectscould identify them by name the day aftertheir first meeting. Name recognition (91%)and identification of level of training bysubjects (84%) were rated important byalmost all TTMs. However, most felt themeaning of these terms was understood bysubjects only sometimes (73%) or rarely(22%).

Almost all felt that TTM identificationimpacted subjects’ satisfaction (87%) andtrust (89%). The majority felt that astandardized process for introductions wasneeded (64%), with about half (56%)preferring use of a paper handout withnames and pictures. Almost all (97%)reported using the EMR as a teaching toolfor families some or all of the time,predominantly for showing imaging results(79%), growth charts (56%), or laboratoryvalues (39%).

DISCUSSION

We found that the use of an electronic toolto display TTMs to subjects significantlyimproved their ability to identify theirattending physicians by name and correctlydefine treatment team roles. Although thebenefits of similar visual tools in paperformat have been demonstrated previously,our goal was to examine the impact of anadjunctive electronic tool designed for oursubjects that was tied to our EMR.Importantly, despite the relatively fewcorrect responses during Phase 1, almostall subjects in both phases reported thatidentification impacted not only theircommunication with the TTM, but also trust

and satisfaction. Although some previousstudies have used similar tools in paper,album, card, or whiteboard format andtested recall ability after tool exposure,13,15,22

other studies have not limited tool use andhave shown positive results in subjects’ability to correctly identify theirphysicians.3,23,24 Our intent was not to testrecall, but to integrate an assistive toolintended to be used throughout the hospitalstay. Our focus was to assess the impact ofour readily available, real-time-updated,EMR-linked electronic tool when used aspreferred by subjects.

It was notable that despite the majority ofTTMs surveyed who felt that subjects did notunderstand the role terminology well, morethan half used the words “intern,”“resident,” or “attending” to describethemselves. TTMs were also not confidentthat subjects could identify them the dayafter their first meeting but agreed thatthey place high importance on their abilityto do so. This illustrates a need for animprovement in the process of TTMidentification for hospitalized families, andthat verbal introductions alone are likely notsufficient to allow for full retention.

FIGURE 2 Subjects’ ability to define treatment team roles correctly. Note, only responses of subjects reporting they knew definitions of terms arenoted.

162 SINGH et al

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

The direct impact of correct identification ofattending physicians and TTMs on clinicalcare outcomes such as length of stay orreadmission rates has not been wellstudied. Our study, however, found a positiveeffect on important aspects of the patientexperience and did so by engaging familiesin their children’s EMR. Improvingsatisfaction and trust can help form astronger therapeutic alliance with thefamily. This alliance is central to shareddecision-making both on a daily basis andfor discharge and posthospital careplanning. Additionally, hospitals and payorsare increasingly using markers surroundingpatient satisfaction as evidence of quality ofcare and to drive reimbursement. Perhapseven more importantly, patients andfamilies have a fundamental right to knowwho is treating their child. This knowledgecan be paramount to patient safety.7,8,25 Thisis particularly highlighted in traininginstitutions, as the Accreditation Council forGraduate Medical Education requires thatpatients know who is serving as theirsupervising physician and that theyunderstand the roles of trainees in theircare.26 Our data and other previous studieslooking at similar measures suggest weas a whole are not doing this well. The use

of a tool such as the one created here canaid with improving TTM identification and isa step toward addressing these weaknessesof our health care system.

Our data suggest that regardless of ourdemographics, our tool was well receivedand that the majority of subjects want touse electronic devices more during theirchild’s hospitalization. Often, families havedown time when their children arehospitalized when there is no active caretaking place, which may be windows ofopportunity for education about theirchildren’s hospitalization. Although thisstudy only looked at effects of a teamidentification tool, it opens up the potentialfor countless other EMR-based applicationsfor hospitalized families such as educationabout their child’s medications anddiagnoses and engagement in the dailyplan.27,28

Some limitations to this study should benoted. It was performed on 1 pediatrichospital medical service at 1 tertiaryteaching institution in a specific geographiclocation. However, the phenomenon of ahospital setting in which practitionerschange often is not unique to teachinginstitutions, and the problem of TTM

identification is common.2,11,12 It is possiblethat subject participation in the studyaffected team interactions with the families.This could have biased the team to be moreexplicit about identifying themselves thanthey might have previously to ensure apositive result or outcome. Additionally, asmedical students were not included in thetool but still participated in patient care,their interactions with subjects may haveinfluenced subjects’ abilities to answersurvey questions. Similarly, the subjects,once enrolled and aware of the focus of thestudy, may have paid more attention toidentifying their TTMs. Furthermore, sincethe survey was completed independently, wecannot state whether the subjects receivedany assistance in completing the survey(from anyone including their partner/otherparent, nurse, or children), which may havebiased the results.

Although the subjects were not the exactsame cohort, the makeup of the patientswas quite similar. Additionally, our studydesign did not include a concurrent controlgroup, and therefore, there is the possibilitythat we did not account for changes insubject awareness of hospital teams thatresulted from other sources. However, atRCHSD, no new process or tool for TTMidentification was in development or useduring the study period other than our tool.Interestingly, access to the internet wasincreased in Phase 2 respondents; this mayhave positively biased the use of the tool.Additionally, the surveys used questions thatwere designed by the research team for thepurposes of the study alone and not testedfor their validity beyond general reviewamong the contributing authors and twononparticipating physicians. Development ofvalidated survey items should be conductedfor use in future studies in this area.

In our study, the tool’s images andinformation were generated directly outof links from the EMR. These links requirethat the information in the EMR be correctand updated. Just as paper handoutsrequire frequent printing and placement,the accuracy of the tool was dependent onTTMs being diligent about keeping theirinformation updated in the EMR. This canbe problematic, as demonstrated in

Table 2 Treatment Team Members Survey Responses for Select Questions (n 5 63)

Question and Response n %

When you introduce yourself to the patient or theirfamily for the first time, do you identify your roleby the words intern/resident/fellow/nursepractitioner/attending?

All the time 40 64

Sometimes 16 25

Rarely 7 11

Never 0 0

Do you feel confident after meeting the patient and/or family that they can identify you by name thenext day?

Yes 6 10

Sometimes 48 76

No 9 14

How important do you think it is for the family orpatient to correctly identify you by name?

Extremely important 10 16

Somewhat important 47 75

Not very important 6 10

Not important at all 0 0

HOSPITAL PEDIATRICS Volume 6, Issue 3, March 2016 163

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

1 study about accuracy of a patient’smedical team via information from theEMR.29 Finally, at our institution, a singleEMR with a common patient portal is usedin all clinical environments, requiringsubstantial information systems support.Other institutions may not have such asystem or may use different EMRs invarious clinical settings. Consequently,novel tool creation may not be easyunless there is institutional support andpriority set from the hospitaladministration.

CONCLUSIONS

In a pediatric teaching hospital where TTMschange often, it can be difficult for familiesto know who is in charge of their child’scare at any point in time. Our electronic toolwas developed from this need and showed apositive impact. TTM identification is a keyaspect to safe patient care. Additionally, ourdata suggest that identification of TTMsaffects not only satisfaction but trust inTTMs as well. Moreover, families wantto increase their use of the EMR incollaboration with their providers, whichoffers additional opportunities forphysician–family engagement. Future workshould be done to explore other potentialbenefits of using the EMR in the inpatientsetting to engage families and patientsin their own care while they arehospitalized.

REFERENCES

1. Institute of Medicine and NationalResearch Council. Resident Duty Hours:Enhancing Sleep, Supervision, andSafety. Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press; 2009

2. Santen SA, Hemphill RR, Prough EE,Perlowski AA. Do patients understandtheir physician’s level of training? Asurvey of emergency departmentpatients. Acad Med. 2004;79(2):139–143

3. Arora VM, Schaninger C, D’Arcy M, et al.Improving inpatients’ identification oftheir doctors: use of FACE cards. JtComm J Qual Patient Saf. 2009;35(12):613–619

4. Pallin DJ, Harris R, Johnson CI, GiraldezE. Is consent “informed” when patients

receive care from medical trainees?Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(12):1304–1308

5. Makaryus AN, Friedman EA. Does yourpatient know your name? An approachto enhancing patients’ awareness oftheir caretaker’s name. J Healthc Qual.2005;27(4):53–56

6. Arora V, Gangireddy S, Mehrotra A, GindeR, Tormey M, Meltzer D. Ability ofhospitalized patients to identify their in-hospital physicians. Arch Intern Med.2009;169(2):199–201

7. Raymond J, Kyzer B, Copper T, et al.South Carolina patient safety legislation:the impact of the Lewis BlackmanHospital Patient Safety Act on a largeteaching hospital. J S C Med Assoc. 2009;105(1):12–15

8. South Carolina State Legislature. LewisBlackman Hospital Patient Safety Act. H.3902, Sess. 120 (2013-2014). Available at:www.scstatehouse.gov/query.php?search5DOC&searchtext5lewis%20blackman&category5LEGISLATION&session5120&conid57629497&result_pos5&keyval51203902&numrows510.Accessed January 15, 2016

9. Mitchell P, Wynia M, Golden R. CorePrinciples & Values of Effective Team-Based Health Care. Discussion Paper.Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine;2012. Available at: www.nationalahec.org/pdfs/vsrt-team-based-care-principles-values.pdf. Accessed January15, 2016

10. Committee on Quality Health Care inAmerica, Institute of Medicine. Crossingthe Quality Chasm: A New Health Systemfor the 21st Century. Washington, DC:National Academy Press; 2001

11. Dudas RA, Lemerman H, Barone M,Serwint JR Jr. PHACES (Photographsof Academic Clinicians and TheirEducational Status): a tool to improvedelivery of family-centered care. AcadPediatr. 2010;10(2):138–145

12. Francis JJ, Pankratz VS, Huddleston JM.Patient satisfaction associated withcorrect identification of physician’s

photographs. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76(6):604–608

13. Appel L, Abrams H, Morra D, Wu RC. Put aface to a name: a randomized controlledtrial evaluating the impact of providingclinician photographs on inpatients’recall. Am J Med. 2015;128(1):82–89

14. Mercer MP, Hernandez-Boussard T,Mahadevan SV, Strehlow MC. Physicianidentification and patient satisfaction inthe emergency department: are theyrelated? J Emerg Med. 2014;46(5):711–718

15. Unaka NI, White CM, Sucharew HJ, Yau C,Clark SL, Brady PW. Effect of a face sheettool on medical team provideridentification and family satisfaction.J Hosp Med. 2014;9(3):186–188

16. Hsu J, Huang J, Fung V, Robertson N,Jimison H, Frankel R. Health informationtechnology and physician-patientinteractions: impact of computers oncommunication during outpatientprimary care visits. J Am Med InformAssoc. 2005;12(4):474–480

17. Liu J, Luo L, Zhang R, Huang T. Patientsatisfaction with electronic medical/health record: a systematic review.Scand J Caring Sci. 2013;27(4):785–791

18. Rosen P, Spalding SJ, Hannon MJ,Boudreau RM, Kwoh CK. Parentsatisfaction with the electronic medicalrecord in an academic pediatricrheumatology practice. J Med InternetRes. 2011;13(2):e40

19. Anthony DL, Campos-Castillo C. Do healthcare users think electronic healthrecords are important for themselvesand their providers? Exploring groupdifferences in a national survey. AMIAAnnu Symp Proc. 2013;2013:42–49

20. Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, et al.Inviting patients to read their doctors’notes: a quasi-experimental study and alook ahead. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(7):461–470

21. Bartlett J, et al. Organizational research:determining appropriate sample size insurvey research. Inf Technol LearnPerform J. 2001;19(1):43–50

164 SINGH et al

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

22. Hu PA, Zhu SH, Fan ZL, Wang L, Gao CQ.

Increasing patients’ ability to identify

their physicians with a photo album: a

prospective study. JRSM Short Rep. 2013;

4(11):1–3

23. Tan M, Hooper Evans K, Braddock CH III,

Shieh L. Patient whiteboards to improve

patient-centred care in the hospital.

Postgrad Med J. 2013;89(1056):604–609

24. Maniaci MJ, Heckman MG, Dawson NL.

Increasing a patient’s ability to identify

his or her attending physician using a

patient room display. Arch Intern Med.2010;170(12):1084–1085

25. Arora VM, Press VG. Let’s “face” it: timeto introduce yourself to patients. J HospMed. 2014;9(3):199–200

26. ACGME. Common Program Requirements.Available at: www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/CPRs2013.pdf.Accessed January 15, 2016

27. Dalal AK, Dykes PC, Collins S, et al. A web-based, patient-centered toolkit to engage

patients and caregivers in the acute

care setting: a preliminary evaluation. J

Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23:80–87

28. Vawdrey DK et al. A tablet computer

application for patients to

participate in their hospital care.

AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;2011:

1428–1435

29. Vawdrey DK, Wilcox LG, Collins S, et al.

Awareness of the care team in

electronic health records. Appl Clin

Inform. 2011;2(4):395–405

HOSPITAL PEDIATRICS Volume 6, Issue 3, March 2016 165

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2015-0164 originally published online January 1, 2016; 2016;6;157Hospital Pediatrics 

Erin S. FisherAmit Singh, Kyung E. Rhee, Jesse J. Brennan, Cynthia Kuelbs, Robert El-Kareh and

Identification on an Inpatient Pediatrics TeamWho's My Doctor? Using an Electronic Tool to Improve Team Member

ServicesUpdated Information &

http://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/6/3/157including high resolution figures, can be found at:

Supplementary Material

2015-0164.DCSupplementalhttp://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/suppl/2016/02/26/hpeds.7.DCSupplementalhttp://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/suppl/2016/02/16/6.3.15Supplementary material can be found at:

Referenceshttp://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/6/3/157#BIBLThis article cites 24 articles, 1 of which you can access for free at:

Subspecialty Collections

dicine_subhttp://www.hosppeds.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/hospital_meHospital Medicinemation_technology_subhttp://www.hosppeds.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/health_inforHealth Information Technologyealth_records_subhttp://www.hosppeds.aappublications.org/cgi/collection/electronic_hElectronic Health Recordsfollowing collection(s): This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the

Permissions & Licensing

mlhttp://www.hosppeds.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtin its entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or

Reprintshttp://www.hosppeds.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtmlInformation about ordering reprints can be found online:

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from

DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2015-0164 originally published online January 1, 2016; 2016;6;157Hospital Pediatrics 

Erin S. FisherAmit Singh, Kyung E. Rhee, Jesse J. Brennan, Cynthia Kuelbs, Robert El-Kareh and

Identification on an Inpatient Pediatrics TeamWho's My Doctor? Using an Electronic Tool to Improve Team Member

http://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/6/3/157located on the World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

http://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/suppl/2016/02/26/hpeds.2015-0164.DCSupplementalhttp://hosppeds.aappublications.org/content/suppl/2016/02/16/6.3.157.DCSupplemental

Data Supplement at:

Print ISSN: 1073-0397. Illinois, 60143. Copyright © 2016 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 345 Park Avenue, Itasca,publication, it has been published continuously since 1948. Hospital Pediatrics is owned, Hospital Pediatrics is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly

by guest on December 31, 2020www.aappublications.org/newsDownloaded from