Patient Perception of

Nurse Responsiveness to
Patient Calls
Elisabeth Alt, Julie Bowman, Jennifer Harris,
Jamiris Merritt & Shannon Werner
Objectives
To examine patient perception of call bell
response times, contributing factors and
propose a potential solution.

Methodology
Examined HCAHPS scores,
patient verbatims,
direct unit observation
and personal interviews.
Use of IHI Plan-Do-Study-Act model
 MACRO
Patient perception of the
responsiveness of hospital staff is nationally
70% (VA 67%). Factors affecting this include:
insufficient communication and teamwork.
.

MICRO
Patient perception of the responsiveness of hospital staff
on the orthopedic unit at SFMC is a mean average of
63.7%, based on Jan.-Aug. 2019 statistics. Possible
contributing factors include: lack of protocol/training for
addressing patient calls, float pool/FLEX staff, and lack of
appropriate delegation.
 Data/Analysis of the
Data Issue Analysis
● HCAHPS- SFMC 4th ● Insufficient teamwork
floor, Jan-Aug ● Insufficient
statistic:
communication
Responsiveness of
hospital staff 63.7% ● Patient perception not
● Patient Interviews equal to reality
● Nurse Verbatims ● Lack of documentation
● PCT Verbatims on hourly rounding
● Unit Observation ● Prioritization and
delegation
 Root Cause
Insufficient
communication
Current between
communication tools patient and
Secretary/PCT/Volunteer:
not being utilized staff members Proper delegation
regarding

Non-static, constantly
expectations
and needs.
Patient
evolving prioritization/evaluation
work of call acuity
environment
Proposed Solution
 Logistics

Implementation
PHASE 1a
Stakeholders Cost Timeline Evaluation
December 2019: ❏ Patient Cost range of printing: December 2019: print
and initial presentation Evaluation of
Print and present ❏ Nurses 100 laminated HCAHPS scores
Lab Studies
call bell information Managers of card
❏ communication cards upon availability
card ❏ Clinical care $102.88-$160.00
Expanded Safety lead January 2020: policy Leader rounding
January 2020: Staff ❏ Patient care institution (quick
education, policy technician Cost of zip ties:
$4.99 per 100 reference), staff
institution (quick in-service/sign off
reference), staff
in-service/sign off
June 2020: Initial
evaluation

September 2020: Follow

up, re-evaluation
 Conclusion
Evidence suggests that
patient perception of call bell
response times may be
improved with the utilization
of a visual aid. This
communication card will
reinforce teaching and
provide clarity of staff roles.
 References

Al Danaf, J., Chang, B. H., Shaear, M., Johnson, K. M., Miller, S., Nester, L., …Aboumatar, H. J. (2017). Surfacing and addressing

hospitalized patients’ needs: Proactive nurse rounding as a tool. Journal of Nursing Management, 26(5), 540-547.

Doi:10.1111/jonm.12580

Klemets, J., & Toussaint, P. (2016). Does revealing contextual knowledge of the patient’s intention help nurses’ handling of nurse calls?

International Journal of Medical Informatics, 86, 1–9. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.11.010

Nelson, J. J., & Staffileno, B. A. (2017). Improving the patient experience: Call light intervention bundle. Journal of Pediatric Nursing,36,

37–43. Doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2017.04.015

Roszell, S., Jones, C., & Lynn, M. (2019). Call bell requests, call bell response time, and patient satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Care

Acuity, 24(1), 69-75. Doi: 10.1097/01.NCQ.0000342938.99036.9f

Tzeng, H.M. (2010). Perspectives of staff nurses of the reasons for and the nature of patient-initiated call lights: An exploratory survey study

in four USA hospitals. BMC Health Services Research, 10(52). Doi:10.1186/1472-6963-10-52