573 What's in A Name? An Audit of Correct Identification of Patients During Ward-Rounds in A Surgical and Urology Receiving Ward

Abstract Aim Clinical governance states that patients should have a named Consultant during their in-patient stay. In our institution, every bed has whiteboard above it, which mentions the name of patient and responsible Consultant. This correspond with electronic system, TrakCare. Ouraim was to audit look into accuracy this practice, in order improve efficacy ward-rounds hence care safety. Method Data collected for general surgery urology receiving wards over 3 consecutive days matched data available on Intervention made form verbal written communication nursing staff junior doctors. Effect intervention assessed 2 weeks later. Results n = 38 bed-boards were assessed. The first cycle demonstrated 7 (18.4%) had either incorrect or no entries. detailed analysis revealed these, consultant names whereas 5 incorrect. second good improvement only 1(2.6%) having names. third sustainable impact 1 (2.6%) missing consultant’s name. Conclusions Ward-rounds been an age-old practice review are vital formulate plan patients, particularly acute settings. It is also important know who providing care. Wrong entries could compromise implications follow up chasing results. A simple by medical can quality