Bedside shift reports are viewed as an opportunity to reduce errors and important to ensure communication between nurses and communication. Models of bedside report incorporating the patient into the triad have been shown to increase patient engagement and enhance caregiver support and education. Nurse shift reports and nurse handovers are 2 of the most critical processes in patient care that can support patient safety and reduce medical errors in the United States. Nurses continue to not recognize the evidence supporting this practice and adopt bedside report into practice.

No abstract

We examine the impact of electronic health record (EHR) adoption on charge capture-the ability of providers to properly ensure that billable services are accurately recorded and reported for payment. Drawing on billing and practice management data from a large, integrated pediatric primary care network that was previously a paper-based organization, monthly encounter, charge, and collection data were collected from 2008 through 2013. Two-level fixed effects models were built to test the impact of EHR adoption on charge capture. The introduction of the EHR to the pediatric primary care network was independently associated with an $11.09 increase in average per patient charges, an $11.49 increase in average per patient collections, and an improvement in physicians' charge-to-collection ratios. Despite high initial outlays and operating costs related to EHR adoption, these results suggest organizations may recoup many of these costs over the long term.

Background and study aims We assessed sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR) at a large academic medical center from 2008 to 2020 and modeled a local, aspirational target SSLDR. We also assessed SSLDRs among all gastroenterology fellows to better understand the relationship between SSLDRs and total colonoscopies performed. Patients and methods SSL-positive pathology results were flagged from a dataset composed of all screening colonoscopies for average-risk patients from 2008 to 2020. Unadjusted SSLDRs were calculated for individual endoscopists by year. A mixed effects logistic regression was used to estimate the log odds of SSL detection, with one model estimating division-wide predictors of SSL detection and a second model focused exclusively on colonoscopies performed by fellows. Model-adjusted SSLDRs were estimated for all 13 years and across both categories of all endoscopists and fellows only. Results Adjusted SSLDRs showed a consistent improvement in SSLDR from a low of 0.37 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.63) in 2008 to a high of 7.94 % (95 % CI: 6.34–9.54) in 2020. Among fellows only, the odds of SSL detection were significantly lower during their first year compared to their second year (OR: 0.80, 95 % CI: 0.66–0.98) but not significantly higher in their third year compared to their second year (OR: 1.09, 95 % CI: 0.85–1.4). Conclusions SSLDR increased steadily and significantly throughout our study period but variance among endoscopists persists. The peak SSLDR from 2020 of 7.94 % should serve as the local aspirational target for this division’s attendings and fellows but should be continuously reevaluated.