,
Objective: Management of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has required social distancing requirements and personal protective equipment shortages, which have forced hospitals to modify patient care rounds. We describe our process developing telemedicine rounds to maintain synchronous, multidisciplinary, pediatric intensive care unit rounds. By adapting available resources using rapid process improvement (PI), we were able to develop patient- and family-centered video rounds (PFCVR). Design: When rounding team members were forced to work from home, we adapted an existing telemedicine platform (VidyoConnect) to perform PFCVR. A quality improvement (QI) team developed an initial standard process, which underwent rapid PI using a small multidisciplinary team. Setting: A 21-bed, mixed medical/surgical/cardiac pediatric intensive care unit. Participants: Critical care patients, families, physicians, consultants, nurses, and ancillary staff. Interventions: The QI team initially met daily, then weekly, sought feedback from nurses, families, and other care providers, and utilized small tests of change to improve the rounding process. Results: We established standardized, socially distanced rounds using VidyoConnect to allow synchronous, multidisciplinary PFCVR. Implementation of a schedule and rounding script facilitated efficient and effective team communication, optimized participation by the entire team, and decreased interruptions. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic compromised the feasibility of the previous rounding process. PFCVR is a safe and effective tool to facilitate communication while adhering to social distancing guidelines. Use of available platforms and team-based PI is critical for successful implementation.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
0
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.