How to do a ward round

Till recently there were no accepted method, standard, process, protocol or parameters on how a doctor should do a ward round for in-patients. We generally turn up, see the patient, sort problems and when the patient gets better we discharge the patient. In recent times there are emerging opinions which have led to some recommendations on ward rounds.
 
I describe my personal experience of one of the best ward rounds that I had the privilege to be a part of during my training days. I describe the ward rounds of the late Mr Suresh B Desai, Consultant Surgeon, Scunthorpe General Hospital. The following is a tribute to him.

House Surgeons should come in at 8 am and had till 9 am to prepare for the ward rounds (time was defined - nothing woolly there); the job was defined:

- Get an updated list of in-patients including admissions through other consultants emergency takes, outliers and consultation requests from other consultants
- Write in the patient notes the results of investigations or have the investigation results on hand ready to be written in the notes
- Deal with any really dire emergencies where the physiology was really poor

Registrars should come in at 8.30 am and had till 9 am; their job was defined:

- Help the house surgeon deal with dire emergencies if there were any
- Talk to the nurses to identify any issues that arose overnight for the in-patients

Mr Desai would arrive at 9 am to the male ward. If there were any dire emergencies the registrar (and not anyone else) would continue to deal with it. Otherwise the whole team started the ward round. The whole team included the ward sister and the nurse who looks after the patient apart from the house surgeon, medical students if any, clinical attachment doctors if any and other healthcare staff as relevant. What I call a ward round kit followed the team - this included the notes trolley, all investigation request forms, a dictaphone, gloves, gel, stationery (continuation sheets, consultation request forms), some house surgeons used to take canulation trays as well.

Every patient was seen - well that is what a ward round is for.

But what then happened was simply brilliant. 

Everything that the patient needed as a result of the consultant visit was completed before moving on to see another patient.

If a patient needed bloods to be repeated immediately it was done right there in front of the consultant, bloods need to be repeated in the afternoon or the next day the forms were done right there, any other test requests (X-ray, CT, ECG, etc) were done then and there. Any communication with other teams/speciality's consultants/registrars they were bleeped or rung, spoken to or if they were not available a message was left with their secretaries. Letters needing dictation though this was rare was done right there. A canula that needed doing was done then and there. Every work that was generated as a result of Mr Desai's ward round was done in the presence of Mr Desai or if appropriate by Mr Desai himself as soon as it was generated before moving on to the next patient for whom again the same process applied.

This made the ward round quite long. When most other consultant ward rounds took less than an hour (which was reasonable by surgical standards), Mr Desai's ward round took all morning (his ward rounds were in the morning). It was initially frustrating. But soon junior doctors realised that there were not many 'to do lists' not many things to actually pending. We were not running like headless chicken after the ward round. We ended up having more time for the doctors mess, more time for learning, more time for everything else.

Any really abnormal results were acted upon at the earliest as anyone would. The next time the house surgeon had any serious work was at 3.30 pm to check on any changes to patient's status which were not already informed and to check on investigation results that were not direly abnormal and to act on it. Barring a late finish in theatres Mr Desai would always visit the wards and speak to the senior nurse at 5 pm every day and conducted the equivalent of a board round. Any patients that needed to come to the attention of the on-call teams were noted - Mr Desai would speak to the on-call consultant and Mr Desai's registrar would speak to the on-call registrar. 5.30 pm we were gone.

I do not know the precise results of Mr Desai's work. All I know was that everyone including me was of the impression that his work was good. It was organised, it was thorough and all elective work was directly consultant delivered or delivered in the presence of a consultant. An aside which could be a nugget as a mark of the quality of his work: all his patients who were having elective major surgery were seen by the physiotherapist with a special emphasis on chest physio - blowing balloons et al - it was no wonder we thought his patients did well.

I did not know about lean concepts in 1994. When I later became aware of lean I realised that this is a single piece flow ward round if there was ever such a thing described.

I recommend it.

© HEMADRI

 
Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets




PS: I have heard a number of patients credit Mr Desai with commencing gastrointestinal endoscopy, vascular surgery, endo-urology and triple assessment breast clinic service at Scunthorpe; I am sure he played a major part in these. I know of a few patients who still remember him and praise him.

Revalidation - GMC must make it objective as soon as possible

The shortest overview of revalidation

GMC is commencing the process of revalidation for doctors in December 2012. The revalidation demands that we have evidence of 

1) Continuing professional development

2) Quality Improvement Activity

3) Significant events

4) Feedback from colleagues

5) Feedback from patients

6) Review of complaints and compliments

These six will populate the annual appraisal which apart from its main domains include the personal development plan, probity and health

Based on the above, the responsible officer will make a 'judgement' on whether the doctor can be recommended for revalidation. The GMC will then make a decision on whether the doctor has been successfully revalidated.

There is plenty of guidance on GMC website : http://www.gmc-uk.org/doctors/revalidation.asp

Concerns about the background for revalidation

While the issue of periodic quality assurance of licensed doctors has been discussed for a long time, the common view is that the current revalidation efforts commenced after the Bristol enquiry and gathered momentum after the Shipman enquiry. Bristol was an outlier, there was no trend that many hospitals or many cardiac surgery units were having unacceptably bad outcomes. Shipman was an outlier, there was no trend that many doctors were behaving or beginning to behave in a Shipman like manner. Outliers need to be analysed properly so that outliers can be stabilised to a performance level compatible with other performers within the general system. Quality principles would suggest that outliers should not trigger a process change for the whole system. Process change for a system could be triggered by an unacceptable trend (there are other reasons to change the process as well, but outlier is generally not one of them). To create a process change on the basis of outliers is thought to result in unnecessary expense and wasted effort.

This does not mean that we cannot learn from outliers, undoubtedly there are extraordinarily important lessons to be learned from Bristol and Shipman.

Linking the background to current revalidation method

Bristol is about performance and Shipman is about behaviour. We can safely assume that this is what the GMC seeks to assure. Quality assurance needs to be demonstrated in an objectively measureable manner.

Revalidation criteria - Not Objective

The six areas of evidence that the GMC asks for seem to be mostly subjective.

Continuous professional development (CPD) is generally accepted as a reflection of time spent on courses and conferences or other learning opportunities. It is certainly not a measure of the knowledge or skills gained or updated though that might happen. Some professional bodies have not defined the time needed to be spent on CPD. Hence while CPD is often measured and entered as a number it is a measure of time spent rather than a number to show the knowledge or skills gained. It could therefore be argued that CPD is either subjective or fit for purpose for revalidation if the intention was to validate or assure knowledge and/or skills.

Quality Improvement Activity: within this areas a range of activity is included. Activity is neither outcome nor achievement. Therefore activity is again time spent rather than gains (or losses) measured. An important point in quality improvement activity is that people fail more often than they succeed, that is the nature of quality improvement. Doctors, hospitals and the GMC should be comfortable with that. This could be potentially be an objective criteria but currently it could probably be considered unsure.

Learning from significant events and review of complaints and compliments are about self-reflection and reflective writing. It is obviously subjective. Feedback from colleagues and feedback from patients though done through validated tools by external or independent service providers is essentially the conversion of subjectivity into a scale to be able to measure.

Are subjective criteria relevant?

Absolutely yes. But only when looked along with objective criteria. Any form of quality assurance process must include subjectivity. The current criteria for revalidation seems mostly subjective and hence the concerns.

Why are objective criteria important?

We are talking about doctors who are essentially already very highly qualified and doing an extremely complex job under phenomenally varying conditions. We are taking about professionals on whom we have already spent somewhere between half-a-million to a million pounds before they are employed to do their role. Revalidation is about making a decision about their careers which could potentially be halted. To make such major decisions on mostly subjective criteria would not make sense. Further, there are planet loads of data already gathered and analysed and hence objective criteria are possibly already available if we wanted to use them.

Next is the issue of who may potentially be adversely affected to a higher degree than most. When subjective criteria are used there is a risk that often the weak, the easy targets and usual suspects may be affected. This has been seen in a few exam situations where certain sections of candidates pass the objective knowledge and skill components but fail the subjective elements of vivas, communication, simulation etc. There is a fear that it is possible that IMGs and BMEs (and SAS) doctors  would be affected by the level of subjectivity involved in revalidation.

There are good reasons behind these fears which relate to the culture and history of healthcare institutions and the culture and mind-set of BME/IMG doctors which is not explored here.

Increasing objectivity

Testing knowledge has traditionally been done by examinations. Americans revalidate their doctors on the basis of an objective examination of knowledge. This while reducing bias increases the validity of assurance of knowledge. Skills assessment could quite relevantly be based on performance data. Speaking from a hospital doctor perspective, this should be quite easy to do with some minimal tweaking on how data is gathered. Operational performance data is either the best or as good as any other indicator of a doctors skill.

Increasing objectivity still would not resolve the underlying issue of a process change for all doctors based on outliers and not trends. The GMC also needs to resolve other issues. Is revalidation a quality assurance process or a quality improvement process? Because the theory and the tools for assurance are different from improvement

Revalidation is important. It is likely that as it stands the revalidation process is heavily subjective. Given the importance of healthcare of the nation it would be advisable to quickly move to mainly objective criteria. We are where we are, let us make it better and fit for purpose.

©M HEMADRI 

Follow me on twitter @HemadriTweets