Search in the Abstract Database

Abstracts Search 2014

* = Presenting author

N002. Using the National IBD Registry to prove the worth of the specialist nurse

K. Lithgo1, T. Price2, M. Johnson1, 1Luton & Dunstable University Hospital foundation trust NHS, Gastroenterology, Luton, United Kingdom, 2The Luton & Dunstable University Hospital Foundation Trust NHS, Gastroenterology, Luton, United Kingdom

Background

The Royal college of Nursing (RCN) encourages nurse specialists to prove their worth. Septon (2013) explains that it is often nurse specialists who find themselves having to justify their existence. Leary (2011) states that of all the developments in nursing, the role of the specialist nurse has been one of the most exciting, but also one of the least understood and valued. The RCN has made securing a sustainable future for specialist nurses, a major goal of its strategic campaigning around national parliamentary elections and when influencing comprehensive spending reviews for health and social care funding (RCN, 2010).

In January 2013, the Luton and Dunstable University hospital became one of the first hospitals to pilot and input with development of the new IBD registry. The new IBD registry has several functions including data entry, work lists and patient tracking, data analysis and reporting. Data analysis and reporting can be broken down by using filters, which is a quick and effective way of measuring and analysing activity.

Methods

In May 2013 we asked if the IBD registry could be updated so that the system automatically knew who was taking the call from the nurse's log in details. Meaning individual workloads and activities could be examined. We also requested that the registry could not only record the time spent with a patient on the telephone but also to be able to record the follow up time spent as a result of that contact.

Results

The total number of IBD patients entered on to our IBD registry is currently 2571. Using the filters we are able to easily establish that there are 1280 ulcerative colitis patients, 934 crohn's disease patients, 77 IBD unclassified and 59 microscopic colitis patients.

There were 1072 telephone and virtual contacts recorded between January and November 2013. The time spent on the phone for these calls calculated to a total of 943 minutes and the time spent as a result of the contact was calculated to 940 minutes. Our findings were that nurse A managed 430 calls and nurse B managed 383 calls, and 3 calls were taken from the gastroenterology sectaries. The IBD registry was able to identify a total of 149 clinics saved and 3 hospital admissions prevented from the IBD advice line during this time. The IBD registry was also able to show that there had been 913 clinic visits and 173 inpatient reviews recorded.

Conclusion

With adding to be IBD registry the follow up time spent as a result of the telephone contact, we have been able to show the same amount of time again in our activities. Using the IBD registry we are able to demonstrate the individual's activities and workloads. Being able to demonstrate individual activities gives the IBD nurse higher worth for continuing the service.

Leary, A. (2011). Proving your worth. Alison Leary has tips on how nurse specialists can demonstrate added value. 25 (31), 62–63. doi.org/10.7748/ns2011.04.25.31.62.p5499.

Norton, C., Sigsworth, J., Heywood, S., Oke, S. (2012). An investigation into activities of the clinical nurse specialist. 26 (30), 42–50. doi.org/10.7748/ns2012.03.26.30.42.c9004.

Septon, M., Kemp, K. (2013). A competency framework for inflammatory bowel disease nurses. 27 (38), 41–45. doi.org/10.7748/ns2013.05.27.38.41.e7403.