Nursing shift report on the medical-surgical units of a large teaching hospital was modified from a recorded report to a blend of both recorded and bedside components. Comparisons between baseline and postimplementation data indicated increased patient satisfaction and nurse perception of accountability and patient involvement but reduced nurse perceptions of efficiency and effectiveness of report. Patient falls at shift change and medication errors were reduced, whereas nurse overtime remained unchanged.

If properly implemented, nursing bedside report can result in improved patient and nursing satisfaction and patient safety outcomes. However, managers should involve staff nurses in the implementation process and continue to monitor consistency in report format as well as satisfaction with the process.

Low health literacy (HL) has been associated with several negative health outcomes, yet routine HL screening is not commonplace. This study's purpose was to determine the feasibility of incorporating HL screening into the electronic health record (EHR) of patients admitted to a large Mid-Atlantic teaching hospital. After Registered Nurse (RN) training, the HL screening was implemented for all adult patients upon admission. After implementation, RNs were surveyed about the feasibility of HL screening, and patient EHRs were reviewed for HL status. Results indicated that RNs were receptive to HL screening. Approximately 20% of all patients screened were at risk for low HL, with HL scores decreasing as age increased. Patients with low HL had significantly higher hospital readmissions, even when controlling for age and number of health conditions. Further research is needed to determine how healthcare providers alter their patient interactions if they have knowledge that patients are at risk for having low HL.

The Student Evaluation of Clinical Education Environment (SECEE) instrument was developed to provide information about the quality of the student clinical learning environment to assist clinical agencies, nursing faculty, and administers in selecting clinical sites that best promote student learning. The SECEE Version 3 was used in all clinical courses at a large mid-Atlantic university from 2001 to 2005. Data from more than 2,700 inventories were analyzed to assess instrument reliability and validity. Internal consistency reliability based on coefficient alpha was .94, with subscale alphas ranging from .82 to .94. Comparisons by analysis of variance revealed significant differences in student evaluations based on both clinical sites and clinical faculty. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the predetermined three factors (subscales) and subscale item content, except for two items. The SECEE Version 3 demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability and the ability to discriminate between student evaluations of distinct clinical sites and faculty and provided practically useful information to both faculty and agency staff.

Most health-related literature is written above the reading ability of the lay audience; however, no studies to date have identified the impact of medical terms on readability of health education materials. The purpose of this study was to identify whether there was a change in calculated reading levels of patient education brochures after medical terms were removed from analysis passages. The reading levels of 5 patient education brochures were analyzed before and after removal of medical terms, using both the Fry and Simple Measure of Gobbledegook (SMOG) readability formulas. Results indicated that the reading levels for all brochures were significantly lower after removal of medical terminology, but they remained above the 5th to 6h grade level recommended by health education experts. Findings hold implications for healthcare professionals in relation to the development and evaluation of patient education materials.