315
BMT Physician-Research Coordinator Relationships: Fostering Reciprocal Communication

Track: Poster Abstracts
Wednesday, February 26, 2014, 6:45 PM-7:45 PM
Longhorn Hall E (Exhibit Level 1) (Gaylord Texan)
Jason D. Sabo, MA , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Joshua Workman , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Melissa Yurch , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Donna Abounader, CCRP , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Patti Baucco, MT (ASCP) , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Sharisa Cross, CCRP , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Tanya Rodela , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Andrea Urbanek , Department of Hematologic Oncology and Blood Disorders, Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute, Cleveland, OH
Matt E. Kalaycio, MD , BMT Program, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH
Background: Interpersonal communication is an intangible - and often overlooked - barrier to data management and error reduction. Reporting to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and internal databases requires comprehensive data management techniques – including communication processes.   Facilitation of interpersonal communication among clinical teams has become increasingly important in healthcare due to potentially adverse outcomes of a communication failure (see Leonard, Graham, & Bonacum, 2004; Marshal, Harrison, & Flanagan, 2009; Propp et. al, 2010) Sutcliffe, Lewton, & Rosenthal, 2004). A poor BMT Physician-research coordinator relationship may result in closed communication, a lack of transparency throughout the clinical team, and insufficient data collection and reporting to CIBMTR. Thus, we recommend actions targeted at removing barriers to reciprocal physician-coordinator communication. 

Methods targeting improved communication: (a.) Physician Sign-off: physician-reviewed data verification encourages open discussion and review of essential CIBMTR data prior to transplant; (b.) Rounding: opportunities to attend in-patient rounds with the entire clinical team increases coordinator knowledge base and permits a transparent view of the continuum of care. (c.) Research Nurse Relationships: highly-accessible and responsive nurses serve as key liaisons between coordinators and the clinical team; (d.) Disease In-service & Education: small group continuing education sessions allow teaching moments between physicians and coordinators; (e.) Direct and Real-Time communication: reducing hierarchical barriers allows any team member to directly contact/speak to a physician or use electronic communication to share patient status updates (e.g., relapses, deaths); (f.) Team Engagement Events: social events encourage networking and relationship development (e.g., NMDP Be the Match - Toss the boss, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, and after work events).

Future: Interpersonal communication is essential to our good clinical practices and embedded in our standard operating procedures. Removing communication barriers and improving relationships has been a critical success factor for our team. Our objective is to continue identifying communication failures while maintaining reciprocal relationships – particularly during times of turnover and transition.

Disclosures:
Nothing To Disclose