Implementation of a structured information transfer checklist improves postoperative data transfer after congenital cardiac surgery:

Safety Interventions in Cardiac Anesthesia: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The cardiac operating room is a complex, high-risk, sociotechnical system. Risks in cardiac surgery and anesthesiology have been extensively categorized, but less is known about effective risk reduction strategies. A comprehensive understanding of effective, evidence-based risk reduction strategies is necessary to improve patient safety in cardiac anesthesia.

METHODS

An advanced literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted to identify studies involving the introduction of a tool or intervention to improve patient safety and human factors in cardiac anesthesia. Studies were screened independently by two authors applying prespecified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Risk reduction strategies and safety initiatives identified were classified according to the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. Data were extracted using a standardized form and were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies were identified for inclusion using preoperative briefing tools, intraoperative checklists, and postoperative handover tools. Preoperative briefing tools were associated with a significant reduction in patient mortality and length of hospital stay and also led to adaptations to planned operation. Intraoperative checklists demonstrated decreased bleeding, mortality, and blood transfusion requirements. Postoperative handover tools were associated with improved information transfer and teamwork.

CONCLUSION

This review identified three categories of tools that may be used to improve patient and organizational outcomes. Many of these tools are simple to introduce and sustainable in the long term and can be readily adapted to different centers.

Handoff Mnemonics Used in Perioperative Handoff Intervention Studies: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Perioperative handoffs are known to present unique challenges to safe and effective patient care. Numerous national accrediting bodies have called for standardized, structured handoff processes. Handoff mnemonics provide a memory aid and standardized structure, as well as promote a shared mental model. We set out to identify perioperative handoff intervention studies that included a handoff mnemonic; critically assess process and patient outcome improvements that support specific mnemonics; and propose future recommendations.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the English language perioperative handoff intervention literature designed to identify handoff mnemonic interventions. A comprehensive protocol was developed and registered (CRD42022363615). Searches were conducted using PubMed, Scopus, ERIC (EBSCO), Education Full Text (EBSCO), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Cochrane (January 1, 2010 to May 31, 2022). Pairs of trained reviewers were involved in all phases of the search and extraction process.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven articles with 23 unique mnemonics met the inclusion criteria. Most articles were published after 2015 (29/37; 78%). Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR), and SBAR variants were used in over half of all studies (22/37; 59%), with 45% (10/22) reporting at least 1 statistically significant process improvement. Seventy percent of handoff mnemonics (26/37) were expanded into lists or checklists. Fifty-seven percent of studies (21/37) reported using an interdisciplinary/interprofessional team to develop the intervention. In 49% of all studies (18/37) at least 1 measurement tool was either previously published or the authors conducting some form of measurement tool validation. Forty-one percent of process measurement tools (11/27) had some form of validation. Although most studies used training/education as an implementation strategy (36/37; 97%), descriptions tended to be brief with few details and no study used interprofessional education. Twenty-seven percent of the identified studies (10/37) measured perception alone and 11% (4/37) measured patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

While the evidence supporting one handoff mnemonic over others is weak, SBAR/SBAR variants have been studied more often in the perioperative environment demonstrating some process improvements. A key finding is that 70% of included studies converted their handoff mnemonic to a list or checklist. Finally, given the essential nature of effective handoffs to perioperative patient safety, it is crucial that handoff interventions are well developed, implemented, and evaluated. We propose 8 recommendations for future perioperative handoff mnemonic clinical interventions and research.

Timing of Intraoperative Transitions of Care Among Anesthesiologists Is Not Associated With Postoperative Adverse Outcomes: Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The majority of published research suggests that anesthesia handovers during major surgical procedures are associated with unintended harmful consequences. It is still unclear if the number or quality of the transition of care is the main driver of the adverse outcomes. There is even less data if the timing of the anesthesiologist handovers during the critical portion of the anesthetic continuum (induction or emergence versus surgical period) plays a role in patient outcomes. Therefore, we investigated if the anesthesiologist handovers during induction and emergence are associated with adverse patient outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective investigation included noncardiac surgical procedures occurring between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 that had exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. We categorized transitions of care between attending anesthesiologists as being before incision, between incision and closing, and after closing. Our primary outcome was a composite of 6 categories of surgical complications and in-hospital mortality. We created logistic generalized estimating equation models to estimate the average relative effect odds ratio between each pair of the 3 transition timing groups across the components of the composite outcome. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to mitigate confounding on a host of baseline variables. We used Bonferroni correction to adjust for multiple comparisons between the transition groups.

RESULTS

In total, we studied 36,937 procedures with exactly 1 attending anesthesiologist handover. Of these records, 4370 had the transition during induction, 24,999 between incision and closure, and 7568 during emergence. No differences were found between the transition periods and the composite outcome. The estimated average relative effect odds ratio (98.3% confidence interval [CI]) across the components of the composite outcome was as follows: (1.0002 [0.81-1.24], P = .99) between the induction and surgical period; (1.10 [0.87-1.40], P = .32) between the induction and emergence periods; and (0.91 [0.79-1.04], P = .08) between the emergence and surgical periods.

CONCLUSIONS

Timing of intraoperative handover among attending anesthesiologists during noncardiac surgery is not associated with adverse patient outcomes.

Structured postoperative handover protocol improves efficiency and quality of interdisciplinary communication and nursing care in surgical intensive care unit: a randomized controlled trial

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured postoperative handover protocol for postoperative transfer to the SICU. This study was a randomized controlled trial conducted in a comprehensive teaching hospital in China. Patients who were transferred to the SICU after surgery were randomly divided into two groups. The intervention group underwent postoperative structured handover protocol, and the control group still applied conventional oral handover. A total of 101 postoperative patients and 50 clinicians were enrolled. Although the intervention group did not shorten the handover duration (6.18 ± 1.66 vs 5.94 ± 1.91; P = 0.505), the handover integrity was significantly improved, mainly reflected in fewer information omissions (1.44 ± 0.97 vs 0.67 ± 0.62; P < 0.001), fewer additional questions raised by ICU physicians (1.06 ± 1.04 vs 0.24 ± 0.43; P < 0.001) and fewer additional handovers via phone call (16% vs 3.9%; P = 0.042). The total score of satisfaction of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (76.44 ± 7.32 vs 81.24 ± 6.95; P = 0.001). With respect to critical care, the incidence of stage I pressure sore within 24 h was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (20% vs 3.9%, P = 0.029). Structured postoperative handover protocol improves the efficiency and quality of interdisciplinary communication and clinical care in SICU.Trial registration This study was registered in China on January 8th, 2022 at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2200055400).

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.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of the Early-Onset Sepsis Calculator: A Multicenter Survey Study

Prior studies demonstrated the neonatal early-onset sepsis (EOS) calculator's potential in drastically reducing antibiotic prescriptions, and its international adoption is increasing rapidly. To optimize the EOS calculator's impact, successful implementation is crucial. This study aimed to identify key barriers and facilitators to inform an implementation strategy. A multicenter cross-sectional survey was carried out among physicians, residents, nurses and clinical obstetricians of thirteen Dutch hospitals. Survey development was prepared through a literature search and stakeholder interviews. Data collection and analysis were based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A total of 465 stakeholders completed the survey. The main barriers concerned the expectance of the department's capacity problems and the issues with maternal information transfer between departments. Facilitators concerned multiple relative advantages of the EOS calculator, including stakeholder education, EOS calculator integration in the electronic health record and existing positive expectations about the safety and effectivity of the calculator. Based on these findings, tailored implementation interventions can be developed, such as identifying early adopters and champions, conducting educational meetings tailored to the target group, creating ready-to-use educational materials, integrating the EOS calculator into electronic health records, creating a culture of collective responsibility among departments and collecting data to evaluate implementation success and innovation results.

Does standardisation improve post-operative anaesthesia handoffs? Meta-analyses on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes

Anaesthesia handoffs are associated with negative outcomes (e.g. inappropriate treatments, post-operative complications, and in-hospital mortality). To minimise these adverse outcomes, federal bodies (e.g. Joint Commission) have mandated handoff standardisation. Due to the proliferation of handoff interventions and research, there is a need to meta-analyze anaesthesia handoffs. Therefore, we performed meta-analyses on the provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes related to post-operative anaesthesia handoff protocols. We meta-analysed 41 articles with post-operative anaesthesia handoffs that implemented a standardised handoff protocol. Compared to no standardisation, a standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoff changed provider outcomes with an OR of 4.03 (95% CI 3.20-5.08), patient outcomes with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.32-1.69), organisational outcomes with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI 2.51-7.19), handoff outcomes with an OR of 8.52 (95% CI 7.05-10.31). Our meta-analyses demonstrate that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs altered patient, provider, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Practitioner Summary: We conducted meta-analyses to assess the effects of post-operative anaesthesia handoff standardisation on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Our findings suggest that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs changed all listed outcomes in a positive direction. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as notable limitations in this literature base.

What are we missing? The quality of intraoperative handover before and after introduction of a checklist

PURPOSE

Intraoperative handovers are common in anesthesia practice and are associated with increased patient morbidity and mortality. Checklists may improve transfer of information during handovers. This before-and-after study sought to examine the effect of a checklist on intraoperative handover. We hypothesized that introducing a handover checklist would improve our primary outcome of completeness of data transfer.

METHODS

From February to August 2016, anesthesia providers (residents, fellows, and consultants) at a single tertiary academic center participated in a handover study. Baseline handovers between anesthesia care providers were videotaped, analyzed, and compared with anesthetic records. An intraoperative handover checklist was then introduced, and handovers completed with it were videotaped. The completeness of handovers was compared between the baseline routine and checklist groups. The primary outcome was completeness of information transfer.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven anesthesia providers participated in the study. Use of the intraoperative handover checklist improved completeness of handover by 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2 to 10; P < 0.01). There was no relationship observed between the provider (consultants/fellows vs resident) of the handovers and the degree of completeness (95% CI, 3 to 8; P = 0.33). Complexity had a significant impact on the handover completeness with low or high complexity cases more completely handed over than those of medium complexity both before and after the intervention-a 6% increase for low complexity (95% CI, 1 to 11; P = 0.02) and a 9% increase for high complexity (95% CI, 3 to 14; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Use of a checklist during intraoperative handovers improved completeness of data transfer. Handover checklists should be considered to improve handover completeness.

Physician-to-Nurse Handover: A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Different Models

OBJECTIVES

Effective professional communication and accurate transfer of relevant clinical information are crucial components of healthcare delivery. National and international health authorities strongly recommend the adoption of effective handover practice. Still, scant evidence is available on the impact of different multiprofessional handover models.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review following the Prepared Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines to retrieve, pool, and critically appraise the available evidence on the effectiveness of different physician-to-nurse handover models adopted in inpatient settings.

RESULTS

We identified 1.243 citations searching the databases Medline, Embase, and CINAHL. After screening, 10 studies were included in the review reporting results on the effectiveness of 8 different handover models, measured on 44 different outcomes, grouped into: (1) process of care and efficiency outcomes, (2) patients' outcomes, and (3) healthcare professionals-related outcomes. Overall, applying structured handover tools improve healthcare practice and selected outcomes; however, not only solid evidence on the effectiveness of different handover models is scant but also global consensus is lacking on which standardized measures and indicators to use to assess their impact.

CONCLUSIONS

In times of healthcare delivery models of growing complexity, multiprofessional handover is a key component of care paths. Although there is overall consensus on the need for improving the quality and safety of multiprofessional handover, the evidence on the tools available to achieve it and the metrics to measure their impact is heterogeneous. We urge that rigorous studies are conducted to inform the planning, implementation, and monitoring of effective handover, with the ultimate aim of improving quality of care and patient safety.

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.

The impact of a structured handover checklist for intraoperative staff shift changes on effective communication, OR team satisfaction, and patient safety: a pilot study

Objective

Handover without a structured format is prone to the omission of information and could be a potential risk to patient safety. We sought to determine the effect of a structured checklist on the quality of intraoperative change of shift handover between scrubs and circulars.

Methods

We conducted a control intervention study on operating room wards of two teaching hospitals from 20 Feb to 21 Nov 2020. This research was conducted in three stages as follows: assessing the current situation (as a group before the intervention), performing the intervention and evaluating the effect of using a checklist on handover quality after the intervention in two groups: with and without checklist. We examined the quality of handover between scrub and circular personnel in terms of handover duration and quality, omission of information and improvement in OR staff satisfaction.

Results

A total of 120 handovers were observed and evaluated. After intervention in the group using the checklist, the percentage of information omission in surgical report was decreased from 19.5 to 12.1% between scrubs (P < 0.00) and from 16.8 to 14.1% between circulars (P < 0.03). Also, in the role of scrub, the mean overall score of handover process quality was significantly higher after the intervention (x̄ = 7 ± 1.5) than before it (x̄ = 6.5 ± 0.9) (p < 0.02). In the role of circulating, despite the positive effect of overall score checklist, no significant difference was observed (p < 0.08). The use of checklist significantly increased the handover duration between scrubs (p < 0.03) and circulars (p < 0.00). The overall mean percentage of handover satisfaction increased from 67.5% before the intervention to 85.5% after the intervention (p < 0.00).

Conclusion

The implementation of a new structured handover checklist had a positive impact on improving the quality of communication between the surgical team, reducing the information omission rate and increasing the satisfaction.

Improving quality of care in less than 1 min: a prospective intervention study on postoperative handovers to the ICU/PACU

PURPOSE

Standardisation of the postoperative handover process via checklists, trainings or procedural changes has shown to be effective in reducing information loss. The clinical friction of implementing these measures has received little attention. We developed and evaluated a visual aid (VA) and >1 min in situ training intervention to improve the quality of postoperative handovers to the intensive care unit (ICU) and postoperative care unit.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The VA was constructed and implemented via a brief (<1 min) training of anaesthesiologic staff during the operation. Ease of implementation was measured by amount of information transferred, handover duration and handover structure. 50 handovers were audio recorded before intervention and 50 after intervention. External validity was evaluated by blinded assessment of the recordings by experienced anaesthesiologists (n=10) on 10-point scales.

RESULTS

The brief intervention resulted in increased information transfer (9.0-14.8 items, t(98)=7.44, p<0.0001, Cohen's d=1.59) and increased handover duration (81.3-192.8 s, t(98)=6.642, p=0.013, Cohen's d=1.33) with no loss in structure (1.60-1.56, t(98)=0.173, p=0.43). Blinded assessment on 10-point scales by experienced anaesthesiologists showed improved overall handover quality from 7.1 to 7.8 (t(98)=1.89, p=0.031, Cohen's d=0.21) and improved completeness of information (t(98)=2.42, p=0.009, Cohen's d=0.28) from 7.3 to 8.3.

CONCLUSIONS

An intervention consisting of a simple VA and <1 min instructions significantly increased overall quality and amount of information transferred during ICU/postanaesthetic care unit handovers.

An observational study of postoperative handoff standardization failures

BACKGROUND

Patient handoffs from an operating room (OR) to an intensive care unit (ICU) require precise coordination among surgical, anesthesia, and critical care teams. Although several standardized handoff strategies have been developed, their sustainability remains is poor. Little is known regarding factors that impede handoff standardization.

PURPOSE

Our objectives are three-fold: (1) highlight compliance failures with standardized handoffs; (2) identify factors contributing to compliance failures; and (3) develop guidelines for sustainable handoff interventions and processes.

METHODS

We used ethnographic data collection methods-general observations, handoff shadowing, and semi-structured clinician interviews-with 84 participants from OR, ICU, and telemedicine teams at a large academic medical center. We conducted thematic analysis supported by inductive and deductive coding using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework.

RESULTS

Post-operative handoffs can be characterized into four phases: pre-transfer preparation, transfer and setup, report preparation and delivery, and post-transfer care. We identified compliance failures with standardized handoff protocols and associated risk factors within the OR-ICU work system including limited teamwork, absence of handoff-specific tools, and poor clinician buy-in. To improve handoffs, clinicians provided suggestions for developing collaborative Electronic Health Record (EHR)-integrated handoff tools and re-engineering the handoff process.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance failures are prevalent in all handoff phases, leading to poor adherence with standardization. We propose theoretically grounded guidelines for designing "flexibly standardized" bundled handoff interventions for ensuring care continuity in OR to ICU transitions of care.

Ascertaining Design Requirements for Postoperative Care Transition Interventions

BACKGROUND

Handoffs or care transitions from the operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) are fragmented and vulnerable to communication errors. Although protocols and checklists for standardization help reduce errors, such interventions suffer from limited sustainability. An unexplored aspect is the potential role of developing personalized postoperative transition interventions using artificial intelligence (AI)-generated risks.

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed to (1) identify factors affecting sustainability of handoff standardization, (2) utilize a human-centered approach to develop design ideas and prototyping requirements for a sustainable handoff intervention, and (3) explore the potential role for AI risk assessment during handoffs.

METHODS

We conducted four design workshops with 24 participants representing OR and ICU teams at a large medical academic center. Data collection phases were (1) open-ended questions, (2) closed card sorting of handoff information elements, and (3) scenario-based design ideation and prototyping for a handoff intervention. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Card sorts were further tallied to characterize handoff information elements as core, flexible, or unnecessary.

RESULTS

Limited protocol awareness among clinicians and lack of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR)-integrated handoff intervention prevented long-term sustainability of handoff standardization. Clinicians argued for a handoff intervention comprised of core elements (included for all patients) and flexible elements (tailored by patient condition and risks). They also identified unnecessary elements that could be omitted during handoffs. Similarities and differences in handoff intervention requirements among physicians and nurses were noted; in particular, clinicians expressed divergent views on the role of AI-generated postoperative risks.

CONCLUSION

Current postoperative handoff interventions focus largely on standardization of information transfer and handoff processes. Our design approach allowed us to visualize accurate models of user expectations for effective interdisciplinary communication. Insights from this study point toward EHR-integrated, "flexibly standardized" care transition interventions that can automatically generate a patient-centered summary and risk-based report.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for operating room to intensive care unit handoffs

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the impact of operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoff interventions on process-based and clinical outcomes.

METHOD

We included all English language, prospective evaluation studies of OR to ICU handoff interventions published as original research articles in peer-reviewed journals. The search was conducted on 11 November 2019 on MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, with no prespecified criteria for the type of comparison or outcome. A meta-analysis of similar outcomes was conducted using a random effects model. Quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black (D&B) checklist.

RESULTS

32 studies were included for review. 31 studies were conducted at a single site and 28 studies used an observational study design with a control. Most studies (n=28) evaluated bundled interventions which comprised information transfer/communication checklists and protocols. Meta-analysis showed that the handoff intervention group had statistically significant improvements in time to analgesia dosing (mean difference (MD)=-42.51 min, 95% CI -60.39 to -24.64), fewer information omissions (MD=-2.22, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.77), fewer technical errors (MD=-2.38, 95% CI -4.10 to -0.66) and greater information sharing scores (MD=30.03%, 95% CI 19.67% to 40.40%). Only 15 of the 32 studies scored above 9 points on the modified D&B checklist, indicating a lack of high-quality studies.

DISCUSSION

Bundled interventions were commonly used to support OR to ICU handoff standardisation. Although the meta-analysis showed significant improvements for a number of clinical and process outcomes, the statistical and clinical heterogeneity must be accounted for when interpreting these findings. Implications for OR to ICU handoff practice and future research are discussed.

Interprofessional Training and Communication Practices Among Clinicians in the Postoperative ICU Handoff

BACKGROUND

Operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs require coordinated communication between clinicians with different professional backgrounds. However, individual studies have not simultaneously evaluated handoff training and OR-to-ICU handoff practices among interprofessional clinicians that participate in these team-based handoffs.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to characterize communication training, practices, and preferences of interprofessional clinicians who engage in OR-to-ICU handoffs. The researchers conducted a mixed methods cohort study using surveys (quantitative) and semistructured interviews (qualitative). Surveys aimed to quantitatively assess the quality of prior handoff training, preferences for clinical information in handoffs, and participation in various handoff activities. Interviews aimed to elicit more in-depth clinician perspectives on these topics through open-ended discussion. The frontline clinicians who were surveyed and interviewed included surgery and anesthesia residents, registered nurses, and advanced practice providers who worked in two ICUs at an urban academic medical center in the United States.

RESULTS

In a survey with a 71.8% response rate (130/181), 45.7% (32/70) of residents, 17.4% (4/23) of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 83.3% (10/12) of ICU nurse practitioners (NPs), and 81.0% (17/21) of ICU RNs indicated that their clinical degree-granting education had not provided adequate preparation for OR-to-ICU handoffs. On-the-job training was deemed not adequate preparation by 35.7% (25/70) of residents, 21.7% (5/23) of CRNAs, 58.3% (7/12) of ICU NPs, and 23.8% (5/21) of ICU RNs. Through 30 semistructured interviews, clinicians from all professions expressed interest in interprofessional communication education and in understanding the perspectives and priorities of care team members in OR-to-ICU handoffs. Clinicians also highlighted the potential value of interprofessional communication training taking place early in a clinical career, during degree-granting education.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians exhibit profession-based differences in OR-to-ICU handoff training, practices, and information needs. Education focused on interprofessional communication is a potential approach to facilitate improved OR-to-ICU handoff communication.

Team performance during postsurgical patient handovers in paediatric care

Postsurgical handover of paediatric patients from operating rooms to intensive care units is a critical moment. This process is susceptible to errors and inefficiencies particularly if poor teamwork in this multidisciplinary and ad hoc collaboration occurs. Through combining provider- and observer-rated team performance, we aimed to determine agreement levels on team performance and associations with mental demands, disruptions, and stress. An observational and multisource study of provider and concomitant expert-observer ratings was established. In an Academic Paediatric Hospital, we conducted standardized observations of postsurgical handovers to PICU. We applied established observational and self-reported teamwork tools. Nested fixed and mixed models were established to estimate agreement within teams, between providers' and observer's ratings, as well as for estimations between team performance and mental demands, disruptions, and stress outcomes. Thirty-one postsurgical patient handovers were included with overall 109 ratings of involved providers. Provider-perceived team performance was rated high. Within the receiving sub-team, situation awareness was perceived lower compared to the handoff sub-team [F(df = 1) = 4.41, p = .04]. Inter-provider agreement on handover team performance was low for the overall team yet higher within handover sub-teams. We observed that high level of distractions during the handover was associated with inferior team performance rated by observers (B = - 0.72, 95% CI = - 1.44, - 0.01).Conclusion: We observed substantial disagreements on how involved professionals as well as observers rated teamwork during patient transfers. Investigations into paediatric teamwork and particular team-based handovers should carefully consider if concurrent provider and observer assessments are a valid and reliable way to evaluate teamwork in paediatric care. Common handover language should be established and mandatory before jointly evaluating this process. Our findings advocate also that handovers should be performed under low levels of distractions.What is Known:• Efficient teamwork during transfers of critically ill children is fundamental to quality and safety of handover practice.• Postoperative handovers are often performed by ad hoc teams of caregivers with multiple backgrounds and are prone to suboptimal team performance, communication, and information transfer.What is New:• Our provider and expert evaluations of team performance during OR-PICU handovers showed poor agreement for team performance. Our findings challenge previous results drawing upon single source assessments and inform future studies to carefully consider what approach of team performance assessments is required.• We further demonstrate that high levels of disruptions are associated with poor team performance during patient handovers and that efforts to ensure undisrupted handover practices in clinical care are necessary.

An Implementation Science Approach to Handoff Redesign in a Cardiac Surgery Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

The ability of handoff redesign to improve short-term outcomes is well established, yet an effective approach for achieving widespread adoption is unknown. An implementation science-based approach capable of influencing the leading indicators of widespread adoption was used to redesign handoffs from the cardiac operating room to the intensive care unit.

METHODS

A transdisciplinary, unit-based team used a 12-step implementation process. The steps were divided into 4 phases: planning, engaging, executing, and evaluating. Based on unit-determined best practices, a "handoff bundle" was designed. This included team training, structured education with video illustration, and cognitive aids. Fidelity and acceptability were measured before, during, and after the handoff bundle was deployed.

RESULTS

Redesign and implementation of the handoff process occurred over 12 months. Multiple rapid-cycle process improvements led to reductions in the handoff duration from 12.6 minutes to 10.7 minutes (P < .014). Fidelity to unit-determined handoff best practices was assessed based on a sample of the cardiac surgery population preimplantation and postimplementation. Twenty-three handoff best practices (information and tasks) demonstrated improvements compared with the preimplementation period. Provider satisfaction scores 2.5 years after implementation remained high compared with the redesign phase (87 vs. 84; P = .133).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an implementation-based approach for handoff redesign can be effective for improving the leading indicators of successful adoption of a structured handoff process. Future quality improvement studies addressing sustainability and widespread adoption of this approach appear to be warranted, and should include the relationships to improved care coordination and reduced preventable medical errors.

A Multidisciplinary Handoff Process to Standardize the Transfer of Care Between the Intensive Care Unit and the Operating Room

OBJECTIVE

Critically ill patients are at high risk for adverse events on transfer between intensive care unit and operating room. Patient safety concerns were raised within our institution during such transfers, and absence of a standardized patient handoff process was identified as an area of concern.

METHODS

The current state of the patient transfer processes between the intensive care units (ICUs) and the operating rooms (ORs) was mapped and failure modes were identified. A multidisciplinary team was convened and a standardized handoff process and tool (checklist) was developed. Adherence to the process and care team satisfaction was assessed at the end of a 60-day pilot period.

RESULTS

The process was successfully implemented hospital-wide covering all adult and pediatric ICUs. We observed a 90% compliance rate with ICU to the OR transfers and 95% compliance rate with transfers from OR to the ICU during the 60-day pilot period. The care team expressed overall satisfaction with the process and identified potential areas of improvement.

CONCLUSION

A standardized patient handoff process between the ICU and the ORs can be successfully implemented in a large academic medical center. Universal application of this quality improvement tool can reduce patient harm, improve communication between providers, and enhance patient safety.

Postoperative patient handovers-Variability in perceptions of quality: A qualitative focus group study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

(a) To explore the factors affecting quality in postoperative handovers as perceived by the different professional groups of clinicians involved. (b) To explore possible differences in perceptions of postoperative handover quality across professional groups and level of experience.

BACKGROUND

High quality patient handovers after surgery and anaesthesia are important to ensure patient safety. There is a paucity of research describing contextual factors related to handover quality and the perspectives of different professional groups involved.

DESIGN

A qualitative exploratory design was applied.

METHOD

A total of eight focus group interviews with 37 participants (29 nurses, eight doctors) were conducted. Anaesthesiologists, resident anaesthesiologists, nurse anaesthetists, postoperative care nurses and operating room nurses participated in the study. The interviews were conducted according to profession with two groups per profession: one with experienced clinicians and one with less experienced clinicians. The data were analysed using thematic analysis. The study adheres to the COREQ guidelines.

RESULTS

The data analysis identified the following factors affecting postoperative handover quality: "timing and concurrency conflicts," "handover structure," "patient conditions," "individual characteristics of clinicians involved" and "team composition." Differences across professional groups and level of experience were related to responsibility, structure and adaptation.

CONCLUSION

The professional groups involved describe the postoperative patient handover as a complex and variable process that needs to be carefully planned and executed according to the influencing factors. Variability exists across professional groups and level of experience.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Health care providers need to be aware that postoperative handovers are affected by a set of factors related to internal (patient conditions, individual characteristics of clinicians involved and team composition) and external (timing and concurrency conflicts, handover structure) characteristics. These issues need to be acknowledged when procedures and routines for handover quality are designed, implemented and used.

Fellowship Training in Pediatric Cardiac Anesthesia: History, Maturation, and Current Status

Pediatric cardiac anesthesia as a discipline has evolved over the years to become a well recognized sub-specialty. Education and training in the field has also continued to change and develop. In this review, the author outline the changes in the field over the years and suggest a structure for an organized fellowship training process.

Developing a Standard Handoff Process for Operating Room-to-ICU Transitions: Multidisciplinary Clinician Perspectives from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) Study

BACKGROUND

Operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs place patients at risk for preventable harm. Numerous studies have described standardized handoff procedures following cardiac surgery, but no existing literature describes a general OR-to-ICU handoff system.

METHODS

As part of the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study, a postoperative handoff procedure was developed by conducting interviews and focus groups with staff routinely involved in OR-to-ICU patient transitions in two mixed surgical ICUs, which included nurses, house staff, and advanced practice providers. Transcripts were analyzed according to grounded theory. Surveys, attending physician interviews, and field notes further informed process development.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 62 individuals, and three focus groups were held with 19 participants. Clinicians endorsed the importance of the OR-to-ICU handoff but identified several barriers to consistently achieving an ideal handoff-mainly, time pressure, unclear expectations, and confusion about other clinicians' informational needs. Participants were receptive to a standardized handoff process, provided that it was not overly prescriptive. Surveys (n = 132) revealed unreliable information transfer with current OR-to-ICU handoffs. These findings and preexisting OR-to-ICU handoff literature were used to develop a novel handoff process and information template suitable for standard use in a mixed surgical ICU.

CONCLUSION

OR and ICU teams agreed on handoffs' importance but expressed important barriers to consistently practicing ideal handoffs. Future work is needed to determine whether the handoff procedures developed by incorporating bedside provider perspectives improve patient outcomes.

Operating Room-to-ICU Patient Handovers: A Multidisciplinary Human-Centered Design Approach

BACKGROUND

Patient handovers (handoffs) following surgery have often been characterized by poor teamwork, unclear procedures, unstructured processes, and distractions. A study was conducted to apply a human-centered approach to the redesign of operating room (OR)-to-ICU patient handovers in a broad surgical ICU (SICU) population. This approach entailed (1) the study of existing practices, (2) the redesign of the handover on the basis of the input of hand over participants and evidence in the medical literature, and (3) the study of the effects of this change on processes and communication.

METHODS

The Durham [North Carolina] Veterans Affairs Medical Center SICU is an 11-bed mixed surgical specialty unit. To understand the existing process for receiving postoperative patients in the SICU, ethnographic methods-a series of observations, surveys, interviews, and focus groups-were used. The handover process was redesigned to better address providers' work flow, information needs, and expectations, as well as concerns identified in the literature.

RESULTS

Technical and communication flaws were uncovered, and the handover was redesigned to address them. For the 49 preintervention and 49 postintervention handovers, the information transfer score and number of interruptions were not significantly different. However, staff workload and team behaviors scores improved significantly, while the hand over duration was not prolonged by the new process. Handover participants were also significantly more satisfied with the new handover method.

CONCLUSIONS

An HCD approach led to improvements in the patient handover process from the OR to the ICU in a mixed adult surgical population. Although the specific handover process would unlikely be optimal in another clinical setting if replicated exactly, the HCD foundation behind the redesign process is widely applicable.

Does Checklist Implementation Improve Quantity of Data Transfer: An Observation in Postanesthesia Care Unit (PACU)

BACKGROUND

Omission of patient information in perioperative communication is closely linked to adverse events. Use of checklists to standardize the handoff in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) has been shown to effectively reduce medical errors.

OBJECTIVE

Our study investigates the use of a checklist to improve quantity of data transfer during handoffs in the PACU.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional observational study.

SETTING

PACU at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC); June 13, 2016 through July 15, 2016.

PATIENTS OTHER PARTICIPANTS

We observed the handoff reports between the nurses, PACU midlevel providers, anesthesia staff, and surgical staff.

INTERVENTION

A physical checklist was provided to all anesthesia staff and recommended to adhere to the list at all observed PACU handoffs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Quantity of reported handoff items during 60 pre- and 60 post-implementation of a checklist.

RESULTS

Composite value from both surgical and anesthesia reports showed an increase in the mean report of 8.7 items from pre-implementation period to 10.9 post-implementation. Given that surgical staff reported the mean of 5.9 items pre-implementation and 5.5 items post-implementation without intervention, improvements in anesthesia staff report with intervention improved the overall handoff data transfer.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a physical 12-item checklist for PACU handoff increased overall data transfer.

Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Standardized Handoff Protocols on Patient, Provider, and Organizational Outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The overall purpose was to understand the effects of handoff protocols using meta-analytic approaches.

BACKGROUND

Standardized protocols have been required by the Joint Commission, but meta-analytic integration of handoff protocol research has not been conducted.

METHOD

The primary outcomes investigated were handoff information passed during transitions of care, patient outcomes, provider outcomes, and organizational outcomes. Sources included Medline, SAGE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed, searched from the earliest date available through March 30th, 2015. Initially 4,556 articles were identified, with 4,520 removed. This process left a final set of 36 articles, all which included pre-/postintervention designs implemented in live clinical/hospital settings. We also conducted a moderation analysis based on the number of items contained in each protocol to understand if the length of a protocol led to systematic changes in effect sizes of the outcome variables.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses were conducted on 34,527 pre- and 30,072 postintervention data points. Results indicate positive effects on all four outcomes: handoff information (g = .71, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.63, .79]), patient outcomes (g = .53, 95% CI [.41, .65]), provider outcomes (g = .51, 95% CI [.41, .60]), and organizational outcomes (g = .29, 95% CI [.23, .35]). We found protocols to be effective, but there is significant publication bias and heterogeneity in the literature. Due to publication bias, we further searched the gray literature through greylit.org and found another 347 articles, although none were relevant to this research. Our moderation analysis demonstrates that for handoff information, protocols using 12 or more items led to a significantly higher proportion of information passed compared with protocols using 11 or fewer items. Further, there were numerous negative outcomes found throughout this meta-analysis, with trends demonstrating that protocols can increase the time for handover and the rate of errors of omission.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that handoff protocols tend to improve results on multiple levels, including handoff information passed and patient, provider, and organizational outcomes. These findings come with the caveat that publication bias exists in the literature on handoffs. Instances where protocols can lead to negative outcomes are also discussed.

APPLICATION

Significant effects were found for protocols across provider types, regardless of expertise or area of clinical focus. It also appears that more thorough protocols lead to more information being passed, especially when those protocols consist of 12 or more items. Given these findings, publication bias is an apparent feature of this literature base. Recommendations to reduce the apparent publication bias in the field include changing the way articles are screened and published.

Standardization of Postoperative Transitions of Care to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Enhances Efficiency and Handover Comprehensiveness

Introduction:

To determine the impact of standardization of postoperative transitions of care to the pediatric intensive care unit on handover efficiency and the quality of healthcare data exchange.

Methods:

This was a prospective, pre–post observational study after standardization of postoperative transitions in a 44-bed pediatric intensive care unit in a 313-bed tertiary care pediatric hospital from April to July 2015. Standardization was completed using a multidisciplinary handover checklist. Primary outcomes were efficiency expressed as mean handover duration and the comprehensiveness of healthcare data exchange.

Results:

Forty-seven postoperative transitions were observed of which 23 were preintervention and 24 were postintervention. After standardization, efficiency improved from 10.5 ± 5.4 to 7.8 ± 2.7 minutes (P < 0.05). Healthcare data exchanged between surgical, anesthesia, and critical care providers were more robust including intraoperative, historical, and anticipatory guidance (all P < 0.05). After intervention, attendance through completion of handover for surgical services increased from 13% to 88% (P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Standardization of postoperative transitions improved efficiency, healthcare data exchange, and anticipatory planning. Future research is required to link standardization of transitions to improved patient outcomes and measure the development of shared mental models.

Improvement in Patient Transfer Process From the Operating Room to the PICU Using a Lean and Six Sigma-Based Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ineffective and inefficient patient transfer processes can increase the chance of medical errors. Improvements in such processes are high-priority local institutional and national patient safety goals. At our institution, nonintubated postoperative pediatric patients are first admitted to the postanesthesia care unit before transfer to the PICU. This quality improvement project was designed to improve the patient transfer process from the operating room (OR) to the PICU.

METHODS

After direct observation of the baseline process, we introduced a structured, direct OR-PICU transfer process for orthopedic spinal fusion patients. We performed value stream mapping of the process to determine error-prone and inefficient areas. We evaluated primary outcome measures of handoff error reduction and the overall efficiency of patient transfer process time. Staff satisfaction was evaluated as a counterbalance measure.

RESULTS

With the introduction of the new direct OR-PICU patient transfer process, the handoff communication error rate improved from 1.9 to 0.3 errors per patient handoff (P = .002). Inefficiency (patient wait time and non-value-creating activity) was reduced from 90 to 32 minutes. Handoff content was improved with fewer information omissions (P < .001). Staff satisfaction significantly improved among nearly all PICU providers.

CONCLUSIONS

By using quality improvement methodology to design and implement a new direct OR-PICU transfer process with a structured multidisciplinary verbal handoff, we achieved sustained improvements in patient safety and efficiency. Handoff communication was enhanced, with fewer errors and content omissions. The new process improved efficiency, with high staff satisfaction.

Handover and transport of critically ill children: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

The handover and transport of critically ill pediatric patients requires communication amongst multiple disciplines. Poor communication is a leading cause of sentinel events and human factors affect handover and transport.

OBJECTIVES

To synthesize published data on pediatric handover and transport and identify gaps to provide direction for future investigation.

METHODS

Integrative literature review.

RESULTS

Forty research studies were reviewed and revealed the following themes: risk for patient complications, standardized communication, and specialized teams and teamwork were associated with improved outcomes. No articles were identified regarding transportation of critically ill pediatric patients from the emergency room to the intensive care unit. There was a knowledge gap in best practices in handover and transport within the unique subsets of the pediatric population including neonate, toddler, school-aged, and adolescents.

CONCLUSIONS

Research supported a combined approach of specialized teams using standardized communication in the handover and transport of the pediatric patient to improve outcomes. Further study is warranted on interprofessional (team to team) handover practices, select subsets of the pediatric population, and the handover and transport of critically ill patients from the emergency room to the intensive care unit.

Improving Escalation of Care: Development and Validation of the Quality of Information Transfer Tool

OBJECTIVE

To develop and provide validity and feasibility evidence for the QUality of Information Transfer (QUIT) tool.

BACKGROUND

Prompt escalation of care in the setting of patient deterioration can prevent further harm. Escalation and information transfer skills are not currently measured in surgery.

METHODS

This study comprised 3 phases: the development (phase 1), validation (phase 2), and feasibility analysis (phase 3) of the QUIT tool. Phase 1 involved identification of core skills needed for successful escalation of care through literature review and 33 semistructured interviews with stakeholders. Phase 2 involved the generation of validity evidence for the tool using a simulated setting. Thirty surgeons assessed a deteriorating postoperative patient in a simulated ward and escalated their care to a senior colleague. The face and content validity were assessed using a survey. Construct and concurrent validity of the tool were determined by comparing performance scores using the QUIT tool with those measured using the Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) tool. Phase 3 was conducted using direct observation of escalation scenarios on surgical wards in 2 hospitals.

RESULTS

A 7-category assessment tool was developed from phase 1 consisting of 24 items. Twenty-one of 24 items had excellent content validity (content validity index >0.8). All 7 categories and 18 of 24 (P < 0.05) items demonstrated construct validity. The correlation between the QUIT and SBAR tools used was strong indicating concurrent validity (r = 0.694, P < 0.001). Real-time scoring of escalation referrals was feasible and indicated that doctors currently have better information transfer skills than nurses when faced with a deteriorating patient.

CONCLUSIONS

A validated tool to assess information transfer for deteriorating surgical patients was developed and tested using simulation and real-time clinical scenarios. It may improve the quality and safety of patient care on the surgical ward.

Early Perioperative Management After Pediatric Cardiac Surgery: Review at PCICS 2014

The sessions of the symposium held in December 2014 allow us to capitalize on the shared knowledge and experience that arise from both cardiac anesthesia and cardiac intensive care. During this session, topics that crossed traditional boundaries of pediatric cardiac intensive care and pediatric cardiac anesthesia were presented and discussed. This article summarizes the five topics presented at the symposium.

Sustainability of protocolized handover of pediatric cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Transfer of patient care among clinicians (handovers) is a common source of medical errors. While the immediate efficacy of these initiatives is well documented, sustainability of practice changes that results in better processes of care is largely understudied.

AIMS

The objective of the current investigation was to evaluate the sustainability of a protocolized handover process in pediatric patients from the operating room after cardiac surgery to the intensive care unit.

METHODS

This was a prospective study with direct observation assessment of handover performance conducted in the cardiac ICU (CICU) of a free-standing, tertiary care children's hospital in the United States. Patient transitions from the operating room to the CICU, including the verbal handoff, were directly observed by a single independent observer in all phases of the study. A checklist of key elements identified errors classified as: (1) technical, (2) information omissions, and (3) realized errors. Total number of errors was compared across the different times of the study (preintervention, postintervention, and the current sustainability phase).

RESULTS

A total of 119 handovers were studied: 41 preintervention, 38 postintervention, and 40 in the current sustainability phase. The median [Interquartile range (IQR)] number of technical errors was significantly reduced in the sustainability phase compared to the preintervention and postintervention phase, 2 (1-3), 6 (5-7), and 2.5 (2-4), respectively P = 0.0001. Similarly, the median (IQR) number of verbal information omissions was also significantly reduced in the sustainability phase compared to the preintervention and postintervention phases, 1 (1-1), 4 (3-5) and 2 (1-3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate sustainability of an improved handover process using a checklist in children being transferred to the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery. Standardized handover processes can be a sustainable strategy to improve patient safety after pediatric cardiac surgery.

Improving the postoperative handover process in the intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to improve the postoperative handover process and immediate postoperative patient outcomes. The objective was to implement a postoperative handover protocol in the neurosurgical intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital.

BACKGROUND

Postoperative handover is a multidisciplinary collaborative medical activity that involves information transfer, sequenced tasks and high-quality teamwork. Evidence suggests that a lack of a standardised postoperative handover protocol adversely influences care quality and potentially compromises patient safety. As there is a lack of such protocols in China, there is an identified need for improvement.

DESIGN

This was a pretest/post-test study with follow-up after three months.

METHODS

A postoperative handover protocol that included a postoperative handover checklist, a standardised handover pathway and core team member involvement was developed based on research evidence and expert opinions and was then implemented and evaluated.

RESULTS

Following the implementation of this protocol, improved teamwork was achieved, surgeons were more frequently present at bedside handovers, the rate of transferring key messages increased, the rate of ventilator weaning within the first six hours of neurosurgical intensive care unit admission increased, and the ventilation duration per patient decreased without any clinical incident occurring in the first 24 hours after neurosurgical intensive care unit admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Following the implementation of a tailored standardised handover protocol, communication, teamwork and short-term patient outcomes were improved.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This clinically based research highlights the need for policy makers and administrators to create unit-specific protocols for improving postoperative handovers.

The effect of a checklist on the quality of patient handover from the operating room to the intensive care unit: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Handover of patient care is a potential safety risk for the patient due to loss of information which may result in adverse outcome. We hypothesized that a checklist for handover from the operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) will lead to an increase of quality regarding information transfer compared with a nonstandardized handover procedure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a prospective, randomized trial in a university hospital. The quality of handovers with checklist was compared with handovers without checklist. Handovers were recorded by digital voice recorder and analyzed using an individual rating sheet for each patient. This enabled to discriminate between items that "must be handed over" (red items) and items that "should be handed over" (yellow items).

RESULTS

A total of 121 patient handovers from OR to ICU were included. Significantly more red items were handed over in the study group compared with the control group (study group: median 87.1%, 25-27 percentile 77.1%-90.0%; control group: median 75.0%, 25-75 percentile 66.7%-88.6%; P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

This study gives first evidence that the use of a standardized checklist for patient handover from OR to ICU increases the quantity and quality of transmitted medical information.

"It's Parallel Universes": An Analysis of Communication Between Surgeons and Intensivists

OBJECTIVES

The intensivist-led model of ICU care requires surgical consultants and the ICU team to collaborate in the care of ICU patients and to communicate effectively across teams. We sought to characterize communication between intensivists and surgeons and to assess enablers and barriers of effective communication.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study. An inductive data analysis approach was taken.

SETTING

Seven intensivist-led ICUs in four academic hospitals.

SUBJECTS

Surgeons (attendings and residents), intensivists (attendings and residents), and ICU nurses participating in the care of surgical patients in the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Communication enablers and barriers existed at two distinct levels: 1) organizational and 2) cultural. At an organizational level, participants identified that formally sanctioned communication structures and processes often acted as barriers to communication. Participants had developed informal strategies to improve communication. At a cultural level, surgical and ICU participants often expressed conflicting perspectives regarding patient ownership, scope of practice, and clinical expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

Major barriers to optimal communication between surgical and ICU teams exist in the intensivist-led ICU environment. Many are related to the structures and processes meant to facilitate communication across teams and others to how some aspects of care in the ICU are conceptualized. Multiple actionable opportunities exist to improve communication in the intensivist-led ICU.

Effectiveness of interventions to improve patient handover in surgery: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Handover of patient care is a critical process in the transfer of information between clinical teams and clinicians during transitions in patient care. The handover process may take many forms and is often unstructured and unstandardized, potentially resulting in error and the potential for patient harm. The Joint Commission has implicated such errors in up to 80% of sentinel events and has published guidelines (using an acronym termed SHARE) for the development of intervention tools for handover. This study aims to review interventions to improve handovers in surgery and to assess compliance of described methodologies with the guidelines of the Joint Commission for design and implementation of handover improvement tools.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in line with MOOSE guidelines. Electronic databases Medline, EMBASE, and PsyInfo were searched and interventions to improve surgical handover identified. Intervention types, development methods, and outcomes were compared between studies and assessed against SHARE criteria.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies were included. These studies included paper and computerized checklists, proformas, and/or standardized operating protocols for handover. All reported some degree of improvement in handover. Description of development methods, staff training, and follow-up outcome data was poor. Only a single study was able to demonstrate compliance with all 5 domains guidelines of the of Joint Commission.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in information transfer may be achieved through checklist- or proforma-based interventions in surgical handover. Although initial data appear promising, future research must be backed by robust study design, relevant outcomes, and clinical implementation strategies to identify the most effective means to improve information transfer and optimize patient outcomes.

Clinical handover of the critically ill postoperative patient: an integrative review

OBJECTIVES

The clinical handover of critically ill postoperative patients from the operating theatre to the intensive care unit is a dynamic and complex process that can lead to communication and technical errors. The objectives of this integrative review were to illustrate how the use of structured handover processes between the operating theatre and intensive care unit impacts information transfer, handover duration, post-handover technical error and high risk events.

REVIEW METHOD USED

Integrative review methodology was used to allow for the inclusion of broad research designs, summarising current knowledge from existing research and identify gaps in the literature.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of electronic databases including the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane library, Embase, ProQuest central and PubMed were performed. Original research articles, in either adults or paediatrics, specific to handover between an operating theatre and intensive care unit were included.

REVIEW METHODS

Data extracted from studies included country of origin, sample size, number of hospital sites, study design, study aim, measures, key findings and limitations. The quality of the integrative review articles was assessed against the 'Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers'.

RESULTS

Ten articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis. Information transfer, post-handover technical errors and high risk events were positively influenced by the use of structured clinical handover tools. Handover duration did not change when using structured handover protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

The body of literature on clinical handover between operating theatre and the intensive care unit is in its early stages of development. Future research using rigorous study designs, broader populations and varied surgical procedures are needed to further evaluate the effect of clinical handover protocols.

Differences in the handover process and perception between nurses and residents in a critical care setting

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To identify the differences in practices and perceptions of handovers between nurses and residents in the critical care setting, so as to improve the quality of the process.

BACKGROUND

Critically ill patients with complex problems are ideal for the study of handovers. However, few handover studies have been conducted in intensive care units.

DESIGN

Descriptive study using questionnaires.

METHODS

We interviewed all nurses and residents involved in handovers of patients admitted to and discharged from a medical intensive care unit over a period of one month. Interviews were guided by a questionnaire and conducted between 24-48 hours of handovers.

RESULTS

Out of 672 eligible participants, 580 (290 nurses and 290 residents) agreed to participate in the study (86·3% response rate). Compared to residents, nurses received more training on handovers, covered issues specific to allied health specialties more frequently during handovers, and reviewed patients earlier after handovers. The perceived importance of the different components of handover varied significantly: donor residents, donor nurses, recipient residents and recipient nurses emphasised the overall management plan, case complexity, management plan over the next 48 hours and past medical history, including allergies, respectively. Satisfaction in the handover was related to pre-handover review of electronic medical records, handover training and clarity level in the management plan following the handover, with only the last factor remaining significant on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

More nurses than residents received prior training in handovers. Nursing handovers were more inclusive of allied health specialties. The perceived importance of the components of handover varied. Greater clarity in management plans was associated with better satisfaction.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Deficiencies in the handover process (lack of prior training in handovers, not including allied health specialties and not reviewing electronic records before handover) were identified, thus providing opportunities for mutual learning between nurses and residents.

Handoffs and transitions in critical care (HATRICC): protocol for a mixed methods study of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs

Background

Operating room to intensive care unit handoffs are high-risk events for critically ill patients. Studies in selected patient populations show that standardizing operating room to intensive care unit handoffs improves information exchange and decreases errors. To adapt these findings to mixed surgical populations, we propose to study the implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process in two intensive care units currently without an existing standard process.

Methods/Design

The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study is a hybrid effectiveness- implementation trial of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs. We will use mixed methods to conduct a needs assessment of the current handoff process, adapt published handoff processes, and implement a new standardized handoff process in two academic intensive care units. Needs assessment: We will use non-participant observation to observe the current handoff process. Focus groups, interviews, and surveys of clinicians will elicit participants’ impressions about the current process. Adaptation and implementation: We will adapt published standardized handoff processes using the needs assessment findings. We will use small group simulation to test the new process’ feasibility. After simulation, we will incorporate the new handoff process into the clinical work of all providers in the study units. Evaluation: Using the same methods employed in the needs assessment phase, we will evaluate use of the new handoff process. Data analysis: The primary effectiveness outcome is the number of information omissions per handoff episode as compared to the pre-intervention period. Additional intervention outcomes include patient intensive care unit length of stay and intensive care unit mortality. The primary implementation outcome is acceptability of the new process. Additional implementation outcomes include feasibility, fidelity and sustainability.

Discussion

The HATRICC study will examine the effectiveness and implementation of a standardized operating room to intensive care unit handoff process. Findings from this study have the potential to improve healthcare communication and outcomes for critically ill patients.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02267174. Date of registration October 16, 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2482-14-96) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intraoperative Transitions of Anesthesia Care and Postoperative Adverse Outcomes

Background:

Transfers of patient care and responsibility among caregivers, “handovers,” are common. Whether handovers worsen patient outcome remains unclear. The authors tested the hypothesis that intraoperative care transitions among anesthesia providers are associated with postoperative complications.

Methods:

From the records of 138,932 adult Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, Ohio) surgical patients, the authors assessed the association between total number of anesthesia handovers during a case and an adjusted collapsed composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidities using multivariable logistic regression.

Results:

Anesthesia care transitions were significantly associated with higher odds of experiencing any major in-hospital mortality/morbidity (incidence of 8.8, 11.6, 14.2, 17.0, and 21.2% for patients with 0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 transitions; odds ratio 1.08 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.10] for an increase of 1 transition category, P &lt; 0.001). Care transitions among attending anesthesiologists and residents or nurse anesthetists were similarly associated with harm (odds ratio 1.07 [98.3% CI, 1.03 to 1.12] for attending [incidence of 9.4, 13.9, 17.4, and 21.5% for patients with 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 transitions] and 1.07 [1.04 to 1.11] for residents or nurses [incidence of 9.4, 13.0, 15.4, and 21.2% for patients with 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 transitions], both P &lt; 0.001). There was no difference between matched resident only (8.5%) and nurse anesthetist only (8.8%) cases on the collapsed composite outcome (odds ratio, 1.00 [98.3%, 0.93 to 1.07]; P = 0.92).

Conclusion:

Intraoperative anesthesia care transitions are strongly associated with worse outcomes, with a similar effect size for attendings, residents, and nurse anesthetists.

Addressing the Mandate for Hand-off Education

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that residency programs teach residents about handoffs and ensure their competence in this communication skill. Development of hand-off curricula for anesthesia residency programs is hindered by the paucity of evidence regarding how to conduct, teach, and evaluate handoffs in the various settings where anesthesia practitioners work. This narrative review draws from literature in anesthesia and other disciplines to provide recommendations for anesthesia resident hand-off curriculum development and evaluation.