Post-implementation nurses rated the communication board highly usable and effective (86-93% agreement)

Description #

On tool-specific post-implementation survey items (post-only, single-arm), nurses rated the communication board highly acceptable: 86% found it easy to use (4.29 ± 0.73), 86% found it easy to incorporate into daily workflow (4.07 ± 0.62), 93% agreed it allowed more effective communication (4.00 ± 0.39), 64% agreed it decreased time spent interpreting nursing tasks (3.86 ± 0.77), and 93% reported overall satisfaction with the tool (4.14 ± 0.54). These are post-only acceptability ratings without a pre-intervention comparison.

"Additional post-implementation questions indicated that 86% of nurses found the tool easy to use (4.29 ± 0.73), and 86% reported it was easy to incorporate into their daily workflow in the pre- and post-operative areas (4.07 ± 0.62). Most nurses (93%) stated it allowed for more effective communication (4.00 ± 0.39), while 64% reported that it decreased the amount of time spent interpreting nursing tasks (3.86 ± 0.77), and 93% reported an overall satisfaction with the communication tool (4.14 ± 0.54)." (Kiblinger, 2022, p. 22)

Methods Context #

What? #ⓘ

The observable: nurse-rated usability, workflow fit, perceived effectiveness, and overall satisfaction with the tool — a battery of tool-specific 5-point Likert items included only on the post-survey.

"The post-survey included the same pre-survey questions with additional tool-specific questions... Sample post-survey items included the following: (1) The tool (communication board) was easy to learn how to use, (2) The tool allowed me to communicate more effectively with my patient/family’s needs, (3) The tool decreased the time required to interpret pre- and post-operative nursing tasks, and (4) Overall, I am satisfied with the communication board." (Kiblinger, 2022, p. 22)

How? #ⓘ

Post-implementation survey administered after the 3-month data-collection period, evaluating the A-0014ArtifactA-0014Initial AI draftInteractive pictorial communication board (pediatric surgery center)An interactive pictorial communication board deployed in a pediatric ambulatory surgery center to let bedside nurses convey routine peri-operative nursing tasks to limited-English-proficiency (LEP) patients and caregiver…; descriptive statistics (mean ± SD, percent agreement) reported, with no pre-intervention comparator for these tool-specific items.

"A post-implementation survey was administered following the three-month data collection period to assess nurse satisfaction with LEP patient communication, perception of time required to interpret nursing tasks, feasibility of implementing the tool, and overall satisfaction with the tool." (Kiblinger, 2022, p. 21)

Who? #ⓘ

The 14 surgery-center staff nurses who completed the post-survey (82% of the 17 surveyed) at the single pediatric ambulatory surgery center.

"82% of nurses completed the post-survey (n = 14)." (Kiblinger, 2022, p. 22)

Other Notes #

These single-arm ratings corroborate the pre-post satisfaction gains but, lacking a comparator, carry weaker inferential weight and are vulnerable to social-desirability bias (see qualifying caveat).

Caveats #

• Small, homogenous, single-center nurse sample limits generalizability (Kiblinger board) The project drew on a very small, homogenous nurse sample (15 pre / 14 post of 17 nurses) at a single ambulatory surgery center within one large hospital system, so the effect estimates are imprecise and the findings may not transfer to other practice settings, patient populations, or non-surgical environments.
• Outcomes are nurse-perceived only with no LEP patient input or outcomes (Kiblinger board) The project measured only nurse-perceived communication outcomes; LEP patients and families were neither involved in developing the board nor assessed for their experience or for downstream clinical outcomes. The tool's actual effectiveness and readability from the patient/caregiver perspective therefore remain unknown, limiting claims about improved LEP communication to the provider's viewpoint.
• Self-reported outcomes vulnerable to social-desirability bias (Kiblinger board) All effectiveness outcomes are nurse self-reports on Likert surveys and are subject to social-desirability bias: nurses may have felt obligated to report improvement after the intervention. The authors themselves flag the striking contrast between the highly positive survey responses and the low actual board utilization as a signal that the satisfaction gains may be inflated.