Team performance during postsurgical patient handovers in paediatric care

Behavioral sciences applied to acute care teams: a research agenda for the years ahead by a European research network

BACKGROUND

Multi-disciplinary behavioral research on acute care teams has focused on understanding how teams work and on identifying behaviors characteristic of efficient and effective team performance. We aimed to define important knowledge gaps and establish a research agenda for the years ahead of prioritized research questions in this field of applied health research.

METHODS

In the first step, high-priority research questions were generated by a small highly specialized group of 29 experts in the field, recruited from the multinational and multidisciplinary "Behavioral Sciences applied to Acute care teams and Surgery (BSAS)" research network - a cross-European, interdisciplinary network of researchers from social sciences as well as from the medical field committed to understanding the role of behavioral sciences in the context of acute care teams. A consolidated list of 59 research questions was established. In the second step, 19 experts attending the 2020 BSAS annual conference quantitatively rated the importance of each research question based on four criteria - usefulness, answerability, effectiveness, and translation into practice. In the third step, during half a day of the BSAS conference, the same group of 19 experts discussed the prioritization of the research questions in three online focus group meetings and established recommendations.

RESULTS

Research priorities identified were categorized into six topics: (1) interventions to improve team process; (2) dealing with and implementing new technologies; (3) understanding and measuring team processes; (4) organizational aspects impacting teamwork; (5) training and health professions education; and (6) organizational and patient safety culture in the healthcare domain. Experts rated the first three topics as particularly relevant in terms of research priorities; the focus groups identified specific research needs within each topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on research priorities within the BSAS community and the broader field of applied health sciences identified through this work, we advocate for the prioritization for funding in these areas.

Teamwork and mental workload in postsurgical pediatric patient handovers: Prospective effect evaluation of an improvement intervention for OR-PICU patient transitions

Postsurgical handover of pediatric patients from operating rooms (OR) to pediatric intensive care units (PICU) is a critical step. This transition is susceptible to errors and inefficiencies particularly if poor multidisciplinary teamwork occurs. Despite wide adoption of standardized handover interventions, comprehensive investigations into joint effects for patient care and provider outcomes are scarce. We aimed to improve OR-PICU handovers quality and sought to evaluate the intervention with particular attention to patient care effects and provider outcomes. A prospective, before-after-study design with an interrupted-series and a multi-source, mixed-methods evaluation approach was established. Drawing upon a participative plan-do-study-act approach, a standardized, checklist-based handover process was designed and implemented. For effect assessments, we observed OR-PICU handovers on site (pre implementation: n = 31, post: n = 30), respectively, with standardized expert observation and provider self-report tools (n = 111, n = 110). Setting was a tertiary Pediatric University Hospital. Supplementary qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted, and a general inductive content analysis approach was used to identify key facilitators and barriers on implementation. Improvement efforts focused on stepwise implementation of (1) standardized handover process and (2) a checklist for multi-professional OR-PICU handover communication. We observed significant increases in team and patient setup (pre: 79.3%, post: 98.6%, p < .01), enhanced team engagement (pre: 50%, post: 81.7%, p < .01), and comprehensive information transfer by the anesthesia sub-team (pre: 78.6%, post: 87.3%, p < .01). Expert-rated teamwork outcomes were consistently higher, yet self-reported teamwork did not change over time. Provider perceived stress and disruptions did not change, mental workload tended to decrease over time (pre: M = 3.2, post: 2.9, p = .08). Comprehensiveness of post-operative patient information reported by PICU physician increased significantly: pre: 65.9%, post: 76.2%, p < .05. After implementation, providers acknowledged the importance of standardized handover practices and associated benefits for facilitation of information transfer and comprehensiveness. Among reported barriers were obstacles during implementation as well as insufficient consideration of professionals' individual workflow after surgery.

CONCLUSION

 A multidisciplinary intervention for postsurgical pediatric patient handovers was associated with improved expert-rated teamwork and fewer omissions of key patient information over time. Inconsistent results were obtained for provider-rated mental workload and teamwork outcomes. The findings contribute to a better understanding concerning the interplay of teamwork and provider cognitions in the course of establishing safe patient transitions in pediatric care.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Transfer of critically ill children conveys significant challenges for interprofessional communication and teamwork. Prospective research into interventions for safe and efficient handover practices of OR PICU patient transitions is necessary. • Checklists are assumed to facilitate cognitive load among providers in acute clinical environments.

WHAT IS NEW

• A standardized, checklist-based handover intervention was associated with improvements in team set-up and information transfer. Provider outcomes such as mental workload and stress did not change over time. • The combination of teamwork and provider assessments allows a more nuanced understanding of implementation barriers and sustainable effects in course of OR-PICU handover interventions.

An evidence synthesis on perioperative Handoffs: A call for balanced sociotechnical solutions

SIGNIFICANCE

Perioperative handoffs interconnect the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases underlying surgical care to maintain care continuity -yet are prone to coordination and communication failures.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize evidence on factors affecting the safety and quality of perioperative handoff conduct and process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL was conducted to include observational, descriptive studies of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative handoffs published in English language, peer-reviewed journals. Data analysis was informed by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework describing the relationship between the work-system, work processes, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Scoring System.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included. Eighteen studies focused on postoperative handoffs, with one on preoperative, three on intraoperative and only one that looked at preoperative/postoperative handoffs combined. The SEIPS framework elucidated the complex inter-related factors (enablers and barriers) related to perioperative handoff safety. While some studies found that the use of standardized handoff tools and protocols and interdisciplinary teamwork were frequently-reported enablers, other studies identified the lack of structured handoff tools and protocols, poor teamwork and communication, and improper use of documentation tools were top-cited barriers affecting handoff quality. Suggestions to ensure handoff safety and quality included implementing structured handoff checklists and protocols and building interprofessional teamwork competencies for effective communication.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our review highlights an urgency to develop more holistic sociotechnical solutions that can create and sustain a balance between technical innovations in tools and technologies and the non-technical interventions/training needed to improve interpersonal relations and teamwork competencies - taken together, can improve the quality and safety of perioperative handoff practice.

Evaluation of a Paper-Based Checklist versus an Electronic Handover Tool Based on the Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR) Concept in Patients after Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease

(1) Background: we compare a new SBAR based electronic handover tool versus a paper-based checklist for handover in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). (2) Methods: this is a randomized, observational study of 40 electronic vs. 40 paper checklist handovers after pediatric cardiac surgery, with a 48 items checklist for comparison of reporting frequencies and notification of disturbances and noise. PICU staff satisfaction was evaluated by a 12-item questionnaire. (3) Results: in 14 out of 40 cases, there were problems with data processing (incomplete or no data processing). Some item groups (e.g., hemodynamics) were consistently reported at higher frequencies than other groups. Items not specifically asked for did not get reported. Some items, automatically processed in the SBAR handover page, did not get reported. Many handovers suffered a noisy and distracting atmosphere. There was no difference in staff satisfaction between the two handover approaches. Nurses were highly unsatisfied with the general approach by which the handover was performed. (4) Conclusions: human error appears to be a main factor for unreliable data processing. Software is still too complicated, and multitasking is a stressful and error prone event. Handover is a complex task with many factors required for a successful completion.

Exploring the relationship between emotion and cognitive load types during patient handovers

Cognitive Load Theory has emerged as an important approach to improving instruction in the health professions workplace, including patient handovers. At the same time, there is growing recognition that emotion influences learning through numerous cognitive processes including motivation, attention, working memory, and long-term memory. This study explores how emotion influences the cognitive load experienced by trainees performing patient handovers. From January to March 2019, 693 (38.7%) of 1807 residents and fellows from a 24-hospital health system in New York city completed a survey after performing a handover. Participants rated their emotional state and cognitive load. The survey included questions about features of the learner, task, and instructional environment. The authors used factor analysis to identify the core dimensions of emotion. Regression analyses explored the relationship between the emotion factors and cognitive load types. Two emotion dimensions were identified representing invigoration and tranquility. In regression analyses, higher levels of invigoration, tranquility, and their interaction were independently associated with lower intrinsic load and extraneous load. The interaction of invigoration and tranquility predicted lower germane load. The addition of the emotion variables to multivariate models including other predictors of cognitive load types significantly increased the amount of variance explained. The study provides a model for measuring emotions in workplace learning. Because emotion appears to have a significant influence on cognitive load types, instructional designers should consider strategies that help trainees regulate emotion in order to reduce cognitive load and improve learning and performance.

Situation awareness and the mitigation of risk associated with patient deterioration: A meta-narrative review of theories and models and their relevance to nursing practice

BACKGROUND

Accurate situation awareness has been identified as a critical component of effective deteriorating patient response systems and an essential patient safety skill for nursing practice. However, situation awareness has been defined and theorised from multiple perspectives to explain how individuals, teams and systems maintain awareness in dynamic task environments.

AIM

Our aim was to critically analyse the different approaches taken to the study of situation awareness in healthcare and explore the implications for nursing practice and research as it relates to clinical deterioration in ward contexts.

METHODS

We undertook a meta-narrative review of the healthcare literature to capture how situation awareness has been defined, theorised and studied in healthcare. Following an initial scoping review, we conducted an extensive search of ten electronic databases and included any theoretical, empirical or critical papers with a primary focus on situation awareness in an inpatient hospital setting. Included papers were collaboratively categorised in accordance with their theoretical framing, research tradition and paradigm with a narrative review presented.

RESULTS

A total of 120 papers were included in this review. Three overarching narratives reflecting philosophical, patient safety and solution focussed framings of situation awareness and seven meta-narratives were identified as follows: individual, team and systems perspectives of situation awareness (meta-narratives 1-3), situation awareness and patient safety (meta-narrative 4), communication tools, technologies and education to support situation awareness (meta-narratives 5-7). We identified a concentration of literature from anaesthesia and operating rooms and a body of research largely located within a cognitive engineering tradition and a positivist research paradigm. Endsley's situation awareness model was applied in over 80% of the papers reviewed. A minority of papers drew on alternative situation awareness theories including constructivist, collaborative and distributed perspectives.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses have a critical role in identifying and escalating the care of deteriorating patients. There is a need to build on prior studies and reflect on the reality of nurse's work and the constraints imposed on situation awareness by the demands of busy inpatient wards. We suggest that this will require an analysis that complements but goes beyond the dominant cognitive engineering tradition to reflect the complex socio-cultural reality of ward-based teams and to explore how situation awareness emerges in increasingly complex, technologically enabled distributed healthcare systems.

Implementation and 1-year follow-up of the cardiovascular ICU standardised handover

BACKGROUND

Miscommunication during clinical handover can lead to partial information transfer and healthcare provider dissatisfaction. We hypothesised that a quality improvement project to standardise the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) handover could improve healthcare provider satisfaction and reduce information omission.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval, the operating room (OR) to CVICU handover was audited prior, post and 1 year after standardisation implementation. The medical information transferred, healthcare provider participation and satisfaction, and patient outcome data were collected. Additionally, surveys were sent to the OR and CVICU staff by email.

RESULTS

There were 68 handover processes observed. The odds of greater satisfaction with handover for providers were 18 times higher with the process post implementation (p<0.0001) and 26 times higher 1 year after implementation (p<0.0001). There was statistically significant difference between intensive care unit resident presence (45% vs 76% vs 91%, p=0.004), surgical faculty presence (10% vs 36% vs 45%, p=0.034) and surgical fellow presence (15% vs 64% vs 62%, p=0.001) between the three time periods. More information related to the surgeon (5% vs 52% vs 27%, p=0.002), the medical history (65% vs 96% vs 91%, p=0.014) and the cardiopulmonary bypass (47% vs 88% vs 76%, p=0.017) was conveyed. The duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter after implementation (2.2±2.6 days vs 1.2±1.9 days vs 0.5±1.2 days, p=0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

One year after the OR to CVICU standardised handover implementation, the healthcare provider satisfaction remained increased, more team members participated and the information transfer increased. Although some clinical outcomes improved, further studies are recommended to prove causality.

A narrative review of modern approach and outcomes evaluation in congenital heart defects

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to highlight critical advances and innovative approaches to the most challenging clinical situations in congenital heart surgery, to establish a new perspective from which to evaluate current clinical practice patterns and contemporary United States program ranking systems.

BACKGROUND

The past decades have witnessed substantial advances in the treatment of congenital heart defects. New strategies are deeply rooted in calculated risk-taking innovations. Pioneer surgeons developed, improved and refined critical operative skills and techniques to optimize cardiovascular physiology, decrease operative mortality and improve clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Unfortunately, in the modern surgical era, supportive environments to allow surgeons to make similar gains and innovative contributions remain scarce. In the current practice, overall procedure volume is prioritized to safeguard quality metrics, including hospital survival and length of stay, surgical complications, and neurocognitive outcomes. As a result, exceptional surgical results have become translated and defined by public ranking systems such as the US News and World Report Best Children's Hospital National Ranking (USNWR) and the Congenital Heart Surgery Database of the Society for Thoracic Surgeons (CHSD-STS), primary based upon early post-operative mortality. This reality places surgeons in a vulnerable position where pressure to achieve a high clinical ranking contrasts with a surgeon definition of "acceptable" surgical risk. Currently, the most frequently used risk stratification tools do not factor in important differences in strategies, such as staged palliation versus complete repair, or bi-ventricular versus uni-ventricular physiology. This favors hospitals pursuing multistage surgical approaches, even if the result is worse long-term morbidity, mortality and increased resource utilization. This economy of ranking-based decision-making causes surgeons either avoid operating altogether or accept less advantageous multi-staged treatment strategies for patients with elevated expected mortality. Such an environment also might present much farther-reaching negative impacts on the growth and development of junior surgeons and trainees, as well as on the pursuit of new surgical innovations to aid future generations of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk aversive surgical behavior is creating an environment not favorable for the children born with truly complex congenital heart defects.

KEYWORDS

Biventricular conversion; congenital heart surgery; multidisciplinary approach; risk-stratification; surgical outcomes.