Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T03:30:15.722Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Quality Improvement Project to Improve Experiences of Audio Quality for Remote Attendees of a Ward Round at a London Acute Adult Mixed Psychiatric Inpatient Ward

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2022

Hamilton Morrin*
Affiliation:
Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Vinitha Soundararajan
Affiliation:
Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
Rupa Ramesh
Affiliation:
Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
James Woollard
Affiliation:
Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

We sought to assess the degree, nature and impact of poor audio quality during ward rounds for individuals attending remotely using Microsoft Teams. We aimed to evaluate attendee experiences of audio quality against our expectation that due to the existing ward microphone system using a cardioid polar pickup pattern that attendees would have difficulty hearing all members of the multidisciplinary team, as well as the patient, gathered in the conference room. We also hypothesised that after switching to an omnidirectional sound recording system, we would observe an improvement in attendee satisfaction with audio quality during ward rounds.

Methods

Individuals who had remotely attended ward rounds at Lesney Ward, Oxleas NHS Trust between 01/11/21 and 01/01/22, mainly patient family members and community care co-ordinators, completed a digital feedback questionnaire regarding audio quality. There was no exclusion criteria. Data from Likert scale questions were analysed with descriptive statistical tests (mode and distribution of responses). As minimal demographic data were obtained, inferential statistical tests were not used. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic sorting based on prevalence of themes in the data.

Results

Feedback was provided by three family members, one ward team member and six members of the community mental health team prior to the intervention. Pre-intervention feedback indicated high levels of dissatisfaction with 6/10 respondents reporting they were “dissatisfied” and 1/10 “very dissatisfied”. Only 3/10 of attendees reported being able to hear and understand all individuals physically present in the room. In addition, respondents agreed that the audio quality was poor (modal response “bad”, 6/10), and that the sound quality impacted upon their experience of the ward round (modal response “yes, greatly”, 6/10).

The three most common main issues reported by respondents were: people speaking too far from the microphone (7/10), voices sounding muffled (6/10), and too much background noise (4/10). Using their own words, respondents described how the ward round sound quality made them feel. Common themes identified through thematic sorting included: distress, difficulty in understanding information / management plan, ward round prolongation and inability to comprehend the patient or staff.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we found that when using an in-built laptop microphone with unidirectional pick-up remote ward round attendee satisfaction was poor, though this improved with the introduction of an omnidirectional system. Key areas for improvement include assessment of optimal positioning for adequate audio pick-up, and the introduction of automatic transcription for individuals with hearing impairments.

Type
Quality Improvement
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.