Care Team Identification

Patient‐centered communication is a strategy that is used to promote shared understanding of the plan of care among providers and patients.[1, 2, 3] Caring for hospitalized patients is a collaborative effort that requires seamless patient‐centered communication among a rapidly changing care team to safely progress a patient from admission through discharge. Yet, hospitals continue to struggle with improving the complex and increasingly electronic conversation patterns among care team members and patients to achieve effective patient‐centered communication.[4, 5] When members of the care team operate in this environment, patients often receive conflicting information regarding their plan of care, medications, and test results. Ineffective communication can lead to a suboptimal patient experience, additional costs, medical errors, and preventable adverse events.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

A critical first step to improving patient‐centered communication is identifying the care team.[11, 12] Accurate and reliable identification of all care team members is a pressing information need; it is fundamental to efficiently conveying information about the plan of care to those who know the patient the best, must make timely decisions, or will assume care once the patient leaves the hospital.[13] Furthermore, it has implications for engaging patients more meaningfully in their care.[14, 15, 16, 17] Ideally, the process of identifying an individual caring for the patient in a specific role is quickly and reliably determined from the electronic health record, the single source of truth where any provider can quickly identify other team members. This source of truth can be updated manually when individual members assign and remove themselves from the care team, or automatically when accessing the patient's record, writing a note, placing an order, or adding a patient to a coverage list. When providers correctly identify other team members in this way, hospital paging directories and secure messaging tools that link to the electronic health record become more effective at supporting care team communication.[18]

In general, the process of identifying care teams is difficult,[19] and maintaining role assignments in the electronic health record is equally challenging. Vawdrey et al. previously reported that care team lists are inaccurate and cannot be used to reliably identify other members at any given moment.[18] The inability to identify team members often leads to incorrectly routed pages, e‐mail messages, and phone calls.[20] Consequently, the potential to reliably manage the care team and improve electronic communication remains untapped, rendering team collaboration and care coordination less effective.[18, 21, 22]

In recent years, the trend toward restructuring inpatient teamsgeographical localization, structured communication interventions, teamwork training, and interdisciplinary roundswould seem to diminish the need for electronic care team identification, as those efforts have already made a positive impact with regard to interprofessional communication and collaboration, team satisfaction, and adverse events.[23, 24, 25, 26] Nonetheless, interdisciplinary teamwork, though critically important for patient‐centered communication, does not completely obviate the need for accurate and reliable care team identification.[26] Although care teams are statically located on units, the plan of care is dynamic; it evolves when the patient's status changes, when new information becomes available, and when key longitudinal providers (eg, primary care physician, subspecialty consultant) make recommendations. Thus, information conveyed as a team on rounds quickly becomes out of date, requiring additional forms of communication. Furthermore, due to frequent ad hoc coverage among team members, the identity of providers covering the patient at any given moment is often not clear.[27] This is particularly problematic for nonunit‐based providers who try to communicate with unit‐based care team members. These providers, in particular, have valuable knowledge and insight that can aid the primary team in decision making.[28, 29] However, they typically do not participate in rounds, often waste time identifying responsible providers,[20] and may communicate their recommendations directly with the patient without discussing with the primary team. These factors in part explain why geographic localization has shown limited improvement in shared understanding of the plan of care.[23]

From the perspective of patients and caregivers, identification of the providers entering and leaving their room is also challenging; only 11% to 51% of patients identify their providers correctly.[30] This adds to confusion regarding who is responsible for which aspects of the patient's care and can negatively affect the perception of the quality of care received.[31] Use of whiteboards has been shown to improve the proportion of patients who could identify key providers,[32] but these are not reliably updated and generally cannot accommodate all team members. When face cards are used, patients and caregivers report that they are more likely to identify their providers correctly.[14, 33, 34] However, potential confusion may ensue when another provider assumes care of the patient in the same role. Finally, use of technology to display team members at the bedside is typically a feature that patients like and can improve identification of care team members.[14, 15, 16] Yet, patient engagement technologies are not readily available in the hospital setting,[35] and ideally should be linked to the electronic health record, which again must be reliably updated.[11, 12, 15, 16]

If care team identification is so critical for delivering effective patient‐centered communication, why is maintaining role assignment problematic? At the individual level, reasons include discontinuity of the care team due to changing clinical rotations and intrateam coverage, shift‐based schedules, and lack of awareness and underutilization of functionality. Additionally, clinicians may have different ways to maintain lists of patients. At the institutional level, functionality to enforce role assignment when accessing patient records may be disabled (to avoid perceived burdens on clinical staff or nonclinical personnel who require access for administrative functions). Finally, electronic health record vendors currently have no incentive to adopt functionality that supports more effective care coordination across settings.[22]

However, more than technical solutions and policy changes are required; care team identification in the electronic health record requires a change in institutional culture. Maintaining an accurate relationship to each patient requires work without tangible benefitsthe benefits accrue only when everyone else identifies their role on the teama tragedy of the commons. This can be illustrated by our own experience. We conducted a quality improvement initiative (Table 1) as a part of 2 concurrent research initiatives that serve to promote patient‐centered communication:[12] PCORI (Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute Transitions), the goal of which is to improve care transitions within the Partners' Pioneer Accountable Care Organization; and the PROSPECT (Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient‐Centeredness, Engagement, Communication, and Technology) project, an initiative funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to eliminate preventable harms in the acute care environment.[29] Our goal was to electronically manage the care team with a high degree of fidelity. We enhanced a home‐grown application, which was developed to improve management of team lists for inpatient providers, accessible from our electronic health record, to facilitate role assignment. Specifically, we leveraged existing care processes (eg, nursing log‐on to the electronic medication administration system) to automatically assign certain providers to the care team at change of shift, added functionality to make it easy to assign a provider to all patients on a list for a defined period of time, and encouraged providers to assign their role by demonstrating benefits including quick access to patient‐specific group e‐mail and secure messaging tools (Table 1, Key Facets). The initiative was well‐received by most disciplines, but uptake was suboptimal. Our research assistants routinely assigned residents and others to the care team because our proactive attempts at advertising and reinforcing use of the application failed to reach a critical mass. Most did not see immediate benefits because it was an added step to their busy day, had other methods of managing team lists, and only saw benefit if everyone else participated. Key facets of our care team identification initiative, successes, and challenges are outlined in Table 1.

There were a few glimmers of hope, however. On several PROSPECT units, we displayed team members on a tablet‐based patient portal so that patients would recognize their providers.[11, 17, 36] Similar to recent work by O'Leary et al.,[14] patients on PROSPECT units were able to correctly identify several care team members, but regularly asked why other providers (eg, consulting fellow) were not listed. Those providers asked the same question, and some eventually learned to assign their role via the application. As part of PROSEPCT, we visited other institutions and learned of an effort to display team members on high‐definition televisions in the patient's room. Several providers, wondering why they were not listed, learned to assign their role and their picture then appeared. Social pressure was the driving force.

Coincidently, we recently implemented a new electronic health record at our institution. Anecdotally, although no formal policy was established, many providers (eg, attendings, first responders, nurses, care coordinators, and other unit‐based providers) appear to be assigning their roles. Other providers (eg, dieticians, physical therapists, residents) also assign their role, but often fail to end role assignments upon completing their rotation or when the patient transfers to another service. Finally, even when actively involved, most subspecialists still do not designate their role. Despite these gaps and inconsistencies, we have made progress toward improving care team identification. The reasons for this progress are straightforward; during required training for the new electronic health record, all inpatient providers were taught to assign their role on the treatment team when assuming care of patients and now have 1 option for managing team lists. However, most providers were not trained to end their role assignments, and many have learned that role assignment is not required to access the patient's record; functionality to enforce this was disabled. Based on lessons learned from our experience,[12] we offer several strategies that hospitalists can employ to improve care team identification in the electronic health record (Table 2).

In the future, care team identification in the electronic health record can be automated by integrating directly with electronic workflows, online scheduling applications, and provider directories. Hospitals could then leverage care team lists to facilitate patient‐centered communication via secure web‐based and mobile messaging applications configured to simultaneously update all team members (eg, group messaging apps, microblogs).[11, 37, 38] By synchronizing with the electronic health record, role assignments can be automatically updated via these applications, further increasing fidelity of care team identification.[12] Finally, as hospitals implement acute care patient portals, team lists can be leveraged to display all care team members correctly so that patients and caregivers can communicate more easily with providers.[17] The potential ramifications for patient‐centered communication are tremendous.

Patient‐centered communication is a strategy that is used to promote shared understanding of the plan of care among providers and patients.[1, 2, 3] Caring for hospitalized patients is a collaborative effort that requires seamless patient‐centered communication among a rapidly changing care team to safely progress a patient from admission through discharge. Yet, hospitals continue to struggle with improving the complex and increasingly electronic conversation patterns among care team members and patients to achieve effective patient‐centered communication.[4, 5] When members of the care team operate in this environment, patients often receive conflicting information regarding their plan of care, medications, and test results. Ineffective communication can lead to a suboptimal patient experience, additional costs, medical errors, and preventable adverse events.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

A critical first step to improving patient‐centered communication is identifying the care team.[11, 12] Accurate and reliable identification of all care team members is a pressing information need; it is fundamental to efficiently conveying information about the plan of care to those who know the patient the best, must make timely decisions, or will assume care once the patient leaves the hospital.[13] Furthermore, it has implications for engaging patients more meaningfully in their care.[14, 15, 16, 17] Ideally, the process of identifying an individual caring for the patient in a specific role is quickly and reliably determined from the electronic health record, the single source of truth where any provider can quickly identify other team members. This source of truth can be updated manually when individual members assign and remove themselves from the care team, or automatically when accessing the patient's record, writing a note, placing an order, or adding a patient to a coverage list. When providers correctly identify other team members in this way, hospital paging directories and secure messaging tools that link to the electronic health record become more effective at supporting care team communication.[18]

In general, the process of identifying care teams is difficult,[19] and maintaining role assignments in the electronic health record is equally challenging. Vawdrey et al. previously reported that care team lists are inaccurate and cannot be used to reliably identify other members at any given moment.[18] The inability to identify team members often leads to incorrectly routed pages, e‐mail messages, and phone calls.[20] Consequently, the potential to reliably manage the care team and improve electronic communication remains untapped, rendering team collaboration and care coordination less effective.[18, 21, 22]

In recent years, the trend toward restructuring inpatient teamsgeographical localization, structured communication interventions, teamwork training, and interdisciplinary roundswould seem to diminish the need for electronic care team identification, as those efforts have already made a positive impact with regard to interprofessional communication and collaboration, team satisfaction, and adverse events.[23, 24, 25, 26] Nonetheless, interdisciplinary teamwork, though critically important for patient‐centered communication, does not completely obviate the need for accurate and reliable care team identification.[26] Although care teams are statically located on units, the plan of care is dynamic; it evolves when the patient's status changes, when new information becomes available, and when key longitudinal providers (eg, primary care physician, subspecialty consultant) make recommendations. Thus, information conveyed as a team on rounds quickly becomes out of date, requiring additional forms of communication. Furthermore, due to frequent ad hoc coverage among team members, the identity of providers covering the patient at any given moment is often not clear.[27] This is particularly problematic for nonunit‐based providers who try to communicate with unit‐based care team members. These providers, in particular, have valuable knowledge and insight that can aid the primary team in decision making.[28, 29] However, they typically do not participate in rounds, often waste time identifying responsible providers,[20] and may communicate their recommendations directly with the patient without discussing with the primary team. These factors in part explain why geographic localization has shown limited improvement in shared understanding of the plan of care.[23]

From the perspective of patients and caregivers, identification of the providers entering and leaving their room is also challenging; only 11% to 51% of patients identify their providers correctly.[30] This adds to confusion regarding who is responsible for which aspects of the patient's care and can negatively affect the perception of the quality of care received.[31] Use of whiteboards has been shown to improve the proportion of patients who could identify key providers,[32] but these are not reliably updated and generally cannot accommodate all team members. When face cards are used, patients and caregivers report that they are more likely to identify their providers correctly.[14, 33, 34] However, potential confusion may ensue when another provider assumes care of the patient in the same role. Finally, use of technology to display team members at the bedside is typically a feature that patients like and can improve identification of care team members.[14, 15, 16] Yet, patient engagement technologies are not readily available in the hospital setting,[35] and ideally should be linked to the electronic health record, which again must be reliably updated.[11, 12, 15, 16]

If care team identification is so critical for delivering effective patient‐centered communication, why is maintaining role assignment problematic? At the individual level, reasons include discontinuity of the care team due to changing clinical rotations and intrateam coverage, shift‐based schedules, and lack of awareness and underutilization of functionality. Additionally, clinicians may have different ways to maintain lists of patients. At the institutional level, functionality to enforce role assignment when accessing patient records may be disabled (to avoid perceived burdens on clinical staff or nonclinical personnel who require access for administrative functions). Finally, electronic health record vendors currently have no incentive to adopt functionality that supports more effective care coordination across settings.[22]

However, more than technical solutions and policy changes are required; care team identification in the electronic health record requires a change in institutional culture. Maintaining an accurate relationship to each patient requires work without tangible benefitsthe benefits accrue only when everyone else identifies their role on the teama tragedy of the commons. This can be illustrated by our own experience. We conducted a quality improvement initiative (Table 1) as a part of 2 concurrent research initiatives that serve to promote patient‐centered communication:[12] PCORI (Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute Transitions), the goal of which is to improve care transitions within the Partners' Pioneer Accountable Care Organization; and the PROSPECT (Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient‐Centeredness, Engagement, Communication, and Technology) project, an initiative funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to eliminate preventable harms in the acute care environment.[29] Our goal was to electronically manage the care team with a high degree of fidelity. We enhanced a home‐grown application, which was developed to improve management of team lists for inpatient providers, accessible from our electronic health record, to facilitate role assignment. Specifically, we leveraged existing care processes (eg, nursing log‐on to the electronic medication administration system) to automatically assign certain providers to the care team at change of shift, added functionality to make it easy to assign a provider to all patients on a list for a defined period of time, and encouraged providers to assign their role by demonstrating benefits including quick access to patient‐specific group e‐mail and secure messaging tools (Table 1, Key Facets). The initiative was well‐received by most disciplines, but uptake was suboptimal. Our research assistants routinely assigned residents and others to the care team because our proactive attempts at advertising and reinforcing use of the application failed to reach a critical mass. Most did not see immediate benefits because it was an added step to their busy day, had other methods of managing team lists, and only saw benefit if everyone else participated. Key facets of our care team identification initiative, successes, and challenges are outlined in Table 1.

There were a few glimmers of hope, however. On several PROSPECT units, we displayed team members on a tablet‐based patient portal so that patients would recognize their providers.[11, 17, 36] Similar to recent work by O'Leary et al.,[14] patients on PROSPECT units were able to correctly identify several care team members, but regularly asked why other providers (eg, consulting fellow) were not listed. Those providers asked the same question, and some eventually learned to assign their role via the application. As part of PROSEPCT, we visited other institutions and learned of an effort to display team members on high‐definition televisions in the patient's room. Several providers, wondering why they were not listed, learned to assign their role and their picture then appeared. Social pressure was the driving force.

Coincidently, we recently implemented a new electronic health record at our institution. Anecdotally, although no formal policy was established, many providers (eg, attendings, first responders, nurses, care coordinators, and other unit‐based providers) appear to be assigning their roles. Other providers (eg, dieticians, physical therapists, residents) also assign their role, but often fail to end role assignments upon completing their rotation or when the patient transfers to another service. Finally, even when actively involved, most subspecialists still do not designate their role. Despite these gaps and inconsistencies, we have made progress toward improving care team identification. The reasons for this progress are straightforward; during required training for the new electronic health record, all inpatient providers were taught to assign their role on the treatment team when assuming care of patients and now have 1 option for managing team lists. However, most providers were not trained to end their role assignments, and many have learned that role assignment is not required to access the patient's record; functionality to enforce this was disabled. Based on lessons learned from our experience,[12] we offer several strategies that hospitalists can employ to improve care team identification in the electronic health record (Table 2).

In the future, care team identification in the electronic health record can be automated by integrating directly with electronic workflows, online scheduling applications, and provider directories. Hospitals could then leverage care team lists to facilitate patient‐centered communication via secure web‐based and mobile messaging applications configured to simultaneously update all team members (eg, group messaging apps, microblogs).[11, 37, 38] By synchronizing with the electronic health record, role assignments can be automatically updated via these applications, further increasing fidelity of care team identification.[12] Finally, as hospitals implement acute care patient portals, team lists can be leveraged to display all care team members correctly so that patients and caregivers can communicate more easily with providers.[17] The potential ramifications for patient‐centered communication are tremendous.

Patient‐centered communication is a strategy that is used to promote shared understanding of the plan of care among providers and patients.[1, 2, 3] Caring for hospitalized patients is a collaborative effort that requires seamless patient‐centered communication among a rapidly changing care team to safely progress a patient from admission through discharge. Yet, hospitals continue to struggle with improving the complex and increasingly electronic conversation patterns among care team members and patients to achieve effective patient‐centered communication.[4, 5] When members of the care team operate in this environment, patients often receive conflicting information regarding their plan of care, medications, and test results. Ineffective communication can lead to a suboptimal patient experience, additional costs, medical errors, and preventable adverse events.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10]

A critical first step to improving patient‐centered communication is identifying the care team.[11, 12] Accurate and reliable identification of all care team members is a pressing information need; it is fundamental to efficiently conveying information about the plan of care to those who know the patient the best, must make timely decisions, or will assume care once the patient leaves the hospital.[13] Furthermore, it has implications for engaging patients more meaningfully in their care.[14, 15, 16, 17] Ideally, the process of identifying an individual caring for the patient in a specific role is quickly and reliably determined from the electronic health record, the single source of truth where any provider can quickly identify other team members. This source of truth can be updated manually when individual members assign and remove themselves from the care team, or automatically when accessing the patient's record, writing a note, placing an order, or adding a patient to a coverage list. When providers correctly identify other team members in this way, hospital paging directories and secure messaging tools that link to the electronic health record become more effective at supporting care team communication.[18]

In general, the process of identifying care teams is difficult,[19] and maintaining role assignments in the electronic health record is equally challenging. Vawdrey et al. previously reported that care team lists are inaccurate and cannot be used to reliably identify other members at any given moment.[18] The inability to identify team members often leads to incorrectly routed pages, e‐mail messages, and phone calls.[20] Consequently, the potential to reliably manage the care team and improve electronic communication remains untapped, rendering team collaboration and care coordination less effective.[18, 21, 22]

In recent years, the trend toward restructuring inpatient teamsgeographical localization, structured communication interventions, teamwork training, and interdisciplinary roundswould seem to diminish the need for electronic care team identification, as those efforts have already made a positive impact with regard to interprofessional communication and collaboration, team satisfaction, and adverse events.[23, 24, 25, 26] Nonetheless, interdisciplinary teamwork, though critically important for patient‐centered communication, does not completely obviate the need for accurate and reliable care team identification.[26] Although care teams are statically located on units, the plan of care is dynamic; it evolves when the patient's status changes, when new information becomes available, and when key longitudinal providers (eg, primary care physician, subspecialty consultant) make recommendations. Thus, information conveyed as a team on rounds quickly becomes out of date, requiring additional forms of communication. Furthermore, due to frequent ad hoc coverage among team members, the identity of providers covering the patient at any given moment is often not clear.[27] This is particularly problematic for nonunit‐based providers who try to communicate with unit‐based care team members. These providers, in particular, have valuable knowledge and insight that can aid the primary team in decision making.[28, 29] However, they typically do not participate in rounds, often waste time identifying responsible providers,[20] and may communicate their recommendations directly with the patient without discussing with the primary team. These factors in part explain why geographic localization has shown limited improvement in shared understanding of the plan of care.[23]

From the perspective of patients and caregivers, identification of the providers entering and leaving their room is also challenging; only 11% to 51% of patients identify their providers correctly.[30] This adds to confusion regarding who is responsible for which aspects of the patient's care and can negatively affect the perception of the quality of care received.[31] Use of whiteboards has been shown to improve the proportion of patients who could identify key providers,[32] but these are not reliably updated and generally cannot accommodate all team members. When face cards are used, patients and caregivers report that they are more likely to identify their providers correctly.[14, 33, 34] However, potential confusion may ensue when another provider assumes care of the patient in the same role. Finally, use of technology to display team members at the bedside is typically a feature that patients like and can improve identification of care team members.[14, 15, 16] Yet, patient engagement technologies are not readily available in the hospital setting,[35] and ideally should be linked to the electronic health record, which again must be reliably updated.[11, 12, 15, 16]

If care team identification is so critical for delivering effective patient‐centered communication, why is maintaining role assignment problematic? At the individual level, reasons include discontinuity of the care team due to changing clinical rotations and intrateam coverage, shift‐based schedules, and lack of awareness and underutilization of functionality. Additionally, clinicians may have different ways to maintain lists of patients. At the institutional level, functionality to enforce role assignment when accessing patient records may be disabled (to avoid perceived burdens on clinical staff or nonclinical personnel who require access for administrative functions). Finally, electronic health record vendors currently have no incentive to adopt functionality that supports more effective care coordination across settings.[22]

However, more than technical solutions and policy changes are required; care team identification in the electronic health record requires a change in institutional culture. Maintaining an accurate relationship to each patient requires work without tangible benefitsthe benefits accrue only when everyone else identifies their role on the teama tragedy of the commons. This can be illustrated by our own experience. We conducted a quality improvement initiative (Table 1) as a part of 2 concurrent research initiatives that serve to promote patient‐centered communication:[12] PCORI (Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute Transitions), the goal of which is to improve care transitions within the Partners' Pioneer Accountable Care Organization; and the PROSPECT (Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient‐Centeredness, Engagement, Communication, and Technology) project, an initiative funded by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation to eliminate preventable harms in the acute care environment.[29] Our goal was to electronically manage the care team with a high degree of fidelity. We enhanced a home‐grown application, which was developed to improve management of team lists for inpatient providers, accessible from our electronic health record, to facilitate role assignment. Specifically, we leveraged existing care processes (eg, nursing log‐on to the electronic medication administration system) to automatically assign certain providers to the care team at change of shift, added functionality to make it easy to assign a provider to all patients on a list for a defined period of time, and encouraged providers to assign their role by demonstrating benefits including quick access to patient‐specific group e‐mail and secure messaging tools (Table 1, Key Facets). The initiative was well‐received by most disciplines, but uptake was suboptimal. Our research assistants routinely assigned residents and others to the care team because our proactive attempts at advertising and reinforcing use of the application failed to reach a critical mass. Most did not see immediate benefits because it was an added step to their busy day, had other methods of managing team lists, and only saw benefit if everyone else participated. Key facets of our care team identification initiative, successes, and challenges are outlined in Table 1.

There were a few glimmers of hope, however. On several PROSPECT units, we displayed team members on a tablet‐based patient portal so that patients would recognize their providers.[11, 17, 36] Similar to recent work by O'Leary et al.,[14] patients on PROSPECT units were able to correctly identify several care team members, but regularly asked why other providers (eg, consulting fellow) were not listed. Those providers asked the same question, and some eventually learned to assign their role via the application. As part of PROSEPCT, we visited other institutions and learned of an effort to display team members on high‐definition televisions in the patient's room. Several providers, wondering why they were not listed, learned to assign their role and their picture then appeared. Social pressure was the driving force.

Coincidently, we recently implemented a new electronic health record at our institution. Anecdotally, although no formal policy was established, many providers (eg, attendings, first responders, nurses, care coordinators, and other unit‐based providers) appear to be assigning their roles. Other providers (eg, dieticians, physical therapists, residents) also assign their role, but often fail to end role assignments upon completing their rotation or when the patient transfers to another service. Finally, even when actively involved, most subspecialists still do not designate their role. Despite these gaps and inconsistencies, we have made progress toward improving care team identification. The reasons for this progress are straightforward; during required training for the new electronic health record, all inpatient providers were taught to assign their role on the treatment team when assuming care of patients and now have 1 option for managing team lists. However, most providers were not trained to end their role assignments, and many have learned that role assignment is not required to access the patient's record; functionality to enforce this was disabled. Based on lessons learned from our experience,[12] we offer several strategies that hospitalists can employ to improve care team identification in the electronic health record (Table 2).

In the future, care team identification in the electronic health record can be automated by integrating directly with electronic workflows, online scheduling applications, and provider directories. Hospitals could then leverage care team lists to facilitate patient‐centered communication via secure web‐based and mobile messaging applications configured to simultaneously update all team members (eg, group messaging apps, microblogs).[11, 37, 38] By synchronizing with the electronic health record, role assignments can be automatically updated via these applications, further increasing fidelity of care team identification.[12] Finally, as hospitals implement acute care patient portals, team lists can be leveraged to display all care team members correctly so that patients and caregivers can communicate more easily with providers.[17] The potential ramifications for patient‐centered communication are tremendous.