Do Bedside Visual Tools Improve Patient and Caregiver Satisfaction? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Patient satisfaction with medical care during hospitalization is a common quality metric.^1,2 Studies showing higher patient satisfaction have reported lower 30-day hospital readmissions³ and improved overall health.^4,5 Conversely, communication failures are associated with dissatisfaction among hospitalized patients and adverse outcomes.^6,7 A lack of familiarity with hospital providers weakens collaborative decision making and prevents high-quality patient care.^8,9

Bedside visual tools, such as whiteboards and pictures of medical staff, have been widely used to enhance communication between patients, families, and providers.^10,11 Results of studies evaluating these tools are varied. For example, 1 study found that 98% of patients were better able to identify physicians when their names were written on whiteboards.¹² Yet in another, only 21.1% of patients were more likely to correctly identify ≥1 physicians using pictures.¹³ Thus, despite widespread use,¹¹ whether visual tools improve patient satisfaction and patient care more broadly remains unclear.^14,15

We performed a systematic review to answer the following 3 questions: first, what is the effect of visual tools on outcomes (ie, provider identification, understanding of providers’ roles, patient–provider communication, and satisfaction); second, does impact vary by type of visual tool (eg, whiteboards vs pictures of providers); and third, what factors (eg, study design, patient population) are associated with provider identification, communication, and patient satisfaction?

Search Strategy

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis when performing this review.¹⁶ A research librarian (WT) conducted serial searches for studies reporting the use of bedside visual tools for hospitalized patients in Medline (via OVID), Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane DSR and CENTRAL. Controlled vocabularies (ie, Medical Subject Headings terms) were used to identify synonyms for visual tools of interest. Additional studies were identified manually through bibliographies and meeting abstracts. No study design, publication date, or language restrictions were placed on the search, which was conducted between April 2016 and February 2017 (see supplementary Appendix A).

Study Selection

Two reviewers (AG and KT) independently assessed study eligibility; discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer (VC). We included all adult or pediatric English language studies in which the effect of visual tool(s) on patient outcomes was reported. Visual tools were defined as the bedside display of information or an instrument given to patients to convey information regarding providers or medical care. Patient-reported outcomes included the following: (a) physician identification, (b) understanding of provider roles, (c) patient–provider communication, and (d) patient satisfaction with care. Providers were defined as physicians, residents, interns, medical students, nurse practitioners, or nurses. We excluded studies that were not original research (eg, conference abstracts, not peer reviewed), reported qualitative data without quantitative outcomes, or did not include a bedside visual tool. Given our interest in hospitalized general medicine patients, studies conducted in emergency departments, surgical units, obstetrics and gynecology wards, and intensive care units were excluded.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Data were extracted independently and in duplicate from all studies by using a template adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration.¹⁷ For all studies, we abstracted study design, type of visual tool (eg, whiteboards), unit setting (eg, medical), population studied (eg, adult vs pediatric), and outcomes reported (ie, physician identification, understanding of provider roles, communication, and satisfaction with care). Reviewers independently assessed and categorized the impact of tools on reported outcomes.

To standardize and compare outcomes across studies, the following were used to denote a positive association between visual tools and relevant outcomes: a greater number of physicians correctly identified by name/picture or title/role; the use of terms such as “high,” “agreed,” or “significant” on surveys; or ≥4 Likert scores for domains of identification, understanding of roles, communication, and satisfaction with care. Conversely, the inability to identify providers compared to the control/baseline; poor recall of titles/roles; lower Likert-scale scores (ie, ≤2); or survey terms such as “poor,” “disagreed,” or “insignificant” were considered to connote negative impact. Studies in which Likert scores were rated neither high nor low (ie, 3), or in which patients neither agreed nor disagreed on value were considered neutral.

Owing to clinical heterogeneity within studies, meta-analyses were not performed. Descriptive statistics were used to describe study outcomes. A priori¹⁸ studies were evaluated according to the following categories: design (eg, randomized vs observational), outcomes (eg, patient satisfaction), intervention (type of visual tool), and patient population (adult or pediatric). Because pediatric patients have underdeveloped communication skills and include parents and/or guardians, data from pediatric studies were tabulated and reported separately to those from adult studies.