Systematic Review of Intraoperative Anesthesia Handoffs and Handoff Tools

A Systematic Review of Postoperative Care Transition Interventions: Examining the Implementation of Handoff Protocols and Checklists

Perioperative care transitions or handoffs represent a high-risk period frequently compromised by communication failures and the loss of essential patient information. Handoffs play a pivotal role in mitigating these risks. A comprehensive assessment of implementation and clinical outcomes is essential to identify protocols that enhance patient safety, improve care quality, and support reproducibility. This study identifies and synthesizes existing evidence on handoff strategies, evaluating their impact on both implementation success and clinical outcomes. A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases was conducted to identify observational and descriptive studies addressing preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative handoffs. Eligible studies were published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals. The selection process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and study quality was evaluated using the Quality Scoring System. Eleven studies evaluating the impact of handoff interventions on both implementation and clinical outcomes were included. Key implementation outcomes, including sustainability and acceptability, were commonly assessed through staff satisfaction surveys. Clinical outcomes included length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and pain scores. All studies incorporated a structured preimplementation planning phase and reported significant improvements in at least 1 implementation outcome, with acceptability being the most consistently improved measure. Each study demonstrated meaningful improvements in at least 1 implementation outcome, while 7 of 11 studies reported significant enhancements in clinical outcomes. The consistent success of various methodologies-whether through expert consultation, frontline involvement, or quality improvement strategies-indicates that a tailored, site-specific approach may be more critical to success than the specific intervention strategy used.

Use of structured handoff protocols for within-hospital unit transitions: a systematic review from Making Healthcare Safer IV

BACKGROUND

Handoffs are a weak link in the chain of clinical care of inpatients. Within-unit handoffs are increasing in frequency due to changes in duty hours. There are strong rationales for standardising the reporting of critical information between providers, and such practices have been adopted by other industries.

OBJECTIVES

As part of Making Healthcare Safer IV we reviewed the evidence from the last 10 years that the use of structured handoff protocols influences patient safety outcomes within acute care hospital units.

METHODS

We searched four databases for systematic reviews and original research studies of any design that assessed structured handoff protocols and reported patient safety outcomes. Screening and eligibility were done in duplicate, while data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. The synthesis of results is narrative. Certainty of evidence was based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework as modified for Making Healthcare Safer IV.

RESULTS

We searched for evidence on 12 handoff tools. Two systematic reviews of Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) (including 11 and 28 original research studies; 5 and 15 were about the use in handoffs) and two newer original research studies provided low certainty evidence that the SBAR tool improves patient safety outcomes. Ten original research studies (about nine implementations) provided moderate certainty evidence that the I-PASS tool (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness, Synthesis to receiver) reduces medical errors and adverse events. No other structured handoff tool was assessed in more than one study or one setting.

CONCLUSION

The SBAR and I-PASS structured tools for within-unit handoffs probably improve patient safety, with I-PASS having a stronger certainty of evidence. Other published tools lack sufficient evidence to draw conclusions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024576324.

The Impact of Intraoperative Anesthesiology Provider Handovers on Postoperative Complications After Hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) Surgery

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study is to assess the possible association between intraoperative anesthesia team handovers and increased 90-day major complications following HPB surgery.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent HPB surgery. Anesthesiologist handover (AH) occurred when a complete transfer of care to a receiving anesthesiologist. total anesthesia team handovers (TH) occurred when both anesthesiologist and supervised provider transferred care. The primary outcome was 90-day major complications, defined as an ACCORDION score of ≥ 3.

RESULTS

Ninety-day major complications occurred in 35 (21.6%) of TH and 96 (21.9%) of AH patients. With adjustment of other covariates, no significant association was found between AH (OR, 1.358, 95% CI, 0.935-1.973, p = 0.1079) or TH (OR, 1.157, 95% CI, 0.706-1.894, p = 0.5633) and 90-day major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

In a high-volume HPB center, anesthesia team handovers were not associated with an increased risk of patients having a major complication within 90 days after HPB surgery.

Error traps in patients with congenital heart disease undergoing noncardiac surgery

Patients with congenital heart disease are living longer due to improved medical and surgical care. Congenital heart disease encompasses a wide spectrum of defects with varying pathophysiology and unique anesthetic challenges. These patients often present for noncardiac surgery before or after surgical repair and are at increased risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality. Although there is no singular safe anesthetic technique, identifying potential error traps and tailoring perioperative management may help reduce morbidity and mortality. In this article, we discuss five error traps based on the collective experience of the authors. These error traps can occur when providing perioperative care to patients with congenital heart disease for noncardiac surgery and we present potential solutions to help avoid adverse outcomes.

Association of anesthesia handovers with perioperative and short-term outcomes after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiologists transition patient care to combat clinician fatigue and accommodate shift limitations. Studies exploring the association of increased handovers with patient outcomes have conflicting findings. Here, we investigate the association of anesthesia handovers with perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy at a single institution from 2017 to 2022 were stratified by the number of anesthesia attending and nonattending (nurse anesthetist/resident) handovers (0-1 or ≥2). Primary outcomes were intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, in addition to 30-day serious morbidity. Logistic and negative binomial regression models were adjusted for covariates related to patient and case complexity.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients were included. Median operative time was 720 minutes (interquartile range, 540-900 minutes). Most cases had fewer than 2 attending handovers (n = 147, 81% vs ≥2 handovers n = 35, 19%) and 2 nonattending handovers (n = 120, 71% vs ≥2 handovers n = 53, 29%). In adjusted models, there were no differences in 30-day serious morbidity and intensive care unit or hospital length of stay between the attending handover groups (0-1 vs ≥2). Patients with ≥2 non-attending handovers had similar odds of 30-day serious morbidity compared with the 0-1 group (odds ratio, 1.613, 95% confidence interval, 0.733-3.550, P = .235), but a longer total hospital (incidence rate ratio, 1.301, 95% confidence interval, 1.071-1.579, P = .008) and intensive care unit length of stay (incidence rate ratio 1.548, 95% confidence interval, 1.038-2.049, P = .030).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple anesthesia handovers were not associated with an increased risk of serious morbidity for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. However, increased handovers (≥2) between nonattending providers was associated with longer hospital and intensive care unit length of stays.

A Qualitative Study of the Work Systems and Culture Around End-of-Day Intraoperative Anesthesia Handoffs in a Tertiary Care Center

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative handoffs have been implicated as a contributing factor in many perioperative adverse events. Despite conflicting data around their impact on perioperative outcomes, they remain a vulnerable point in the perioperative system with significant attention focused on improving them. This study aimed to understand the processes in place surrounding the point of information transfer in intraoperative handoffs.

METHODS

We used semistructured interviews with anesthesia clinicians to understand the processes and systems surrounding intraoperative handoffs. Interview data were coded deductively using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model as a framework, with subthemes developed inductively.

RESULTS

Clinicians do a significant amount of work before and after the point of information transfer to ensure a smooth handoff and safe patient care. Despite not having standardization of handoffs, most clinicians have a typical handoff organization and largely agree on content that should be included. However, there is variability based on clinician and patient characteristics, including clinician discipline and patient acuity. These handoffs are additionally impacted by the overall culture in the operating room, including the teamwork and hierarchies present among the surgical and anesthesia teams. Finally, the broader operating room logistics, including scheduling practices for surgical cases and anesthesia teams, impact the quality of intraoperative handoffs and the ability of clinicians to prepare for these handoffs.

CONCLUSIONS

Handoffs involve processes beyond the point of information transfer and are embedded in the systems and culture of the operating rooms. These considerations are important when seeking to improve the quality of intraoperative handoffs.

Effect of standardized EHR-integrated handoff report on intraoperative communication outcomes

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the effectiveness and implementability of a standardized EHR-integrated handoff report to support intraoperative handoffs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pre-post intervention study was used to compare the quality of intraoperative handoffs supported by unstructured notes (pre) to structured, standardized EHR-integrated handoff reports (post). Participants included anesthesia clinicians involved in intraoperative handoffs. A mixed-method approach was followed, supported by general observations, shadowing, surveys, and interviews.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty-one intraoperative permanent handoffs (78 pre, 73 post) were included. One hundred percent of participants in the post-intervention cohort utilized the report. Compared to unstructured, structured handoffs using the EHR-integrated handoff report led to: (1) significant increase in the transfer of information about airway management (55%-78%, P < .001), intraoperative course (63%-86%, P < .001), and potential concerns (64%-88%, P < .001); (2) significant improvement in clinician satisfaction scores, with regards to information clarity and succinctness (4.5-4.7, P = .002), information transfer (3.8-4.2, P = .011), and opportunities for fewer errors reported by senders (3.3-2.5, P < .001) and receivers (3.2-2.4, P < .001); and (3) significant decrease in handoff duration (326.2-262.3 s, P = .016). Clinicians found the report implementation highly acceptable, appropriate, and feasible but noted a few areas for improvement to enhance its usability and integration within the intraoperative workflow.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

A standardized EHR-integrated handoff report ensures the effectiveness and efficiency of intraoperative handoffs with its structured, consistent format that-promotes up-to-date and pertinent intraoperative information transfer; reduces opportunities for errors; and streamlines verbal communication. Handoff standardization can promote safe and high-quality intraoperative care.

Pilot study to develop a pre-operative "Cardiothoracic Clinical Handover Tool" and its effect on handover quality

BACKGROUND

Clinical handover is an essential step in the surgical patient's hospital journey, but one that is not without risk. Within cardiothoracic surgery, endeavours to protocolise post-operative handover from cardiac theatre to cardiac intensive care units have resulted in enhanced patient safety, but little to no effort has focused on the pre-operative setting and the dissemination of information throughout the surgical team.

METHODS

We designed a pre-post study examining the quality of pre-operative cardiothoracic patient handovers before and after the introduction of an intra-departmentally designed "Cardiothoracic Clinical Handover Tool" based on the Royal College of Surgeons of England's guidelines for "Safe Handover".

RESULTS

Forty clinical handovers were assessed in each arm of the study. Handover quality improved from a score of 63.75% to 88.57% (p = < 0.001). This prolonged handover duration from a mean of 72.1 to 102.4 seconds per case (p = 0.003). Interruptions occurred in 27.5% of pre- and 25% of post-intervention handovers. Interruptions resulted in increased handover duration in both pre- and post-intervention groups (114.6 vs 77.7 seconds, p = 0.012) and poorer quality handovers in the pre-intervention group (51.28% vs 68.42%, p = 0.03) but failed to impact handover quality in the post-intervention group (88.57% vs 88.57%, p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical handover tools have the potential to enhance the quality of pre-operative handover and protect against poor handover practices such as interruptions, safe-guarding patient welfare. We provide the first cardiothoracic specific pre-operative handover tool based on the RCSE guidelines.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Reduce Adverse Effects of Transitions of Anesthesia Care on Postoperative Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

An intraoperative transfer of care from one anesthesia provider to another, or handover, may result in information loss and contribute to adverse patient outcomes. In 2019 the authors undertook a quality improvement effort to increase the use of a structured intraoperative handover tool incorporated in the electronic medical record. The authors hypothesized that intraoperative handovers of anesthesia care would be associated with adverse patient outcomes, and that increased use of a structured tool would attenuate this effect.

METHODS

This study included adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery of at least 1 h duration performed during the period 2016 to 2021. Cases with a handover were identified if either there was a change of attending anesthesiologist or change of nurse anesthetist or resident for more than 35 min. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a composite of postoperative mortality and major postoperative morbidity. The effect of the intervention was analyzed by examining the quarterly change in odds ratio for the primary outcome for cases with and without a handover.

RESULTS

A total of 121,077 cases, 40.4% of which had a handover, were included. After weighting, the composite outcome was statistically associated with handovers (3,517 of 48,986 [7.2%] in handover cases vs. 4,470 of 72,091 [6.2%] in nonhandover cases; odds ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.12). Time series analysis showed a marked increase in usage of the structured tool after the initial intervention. The odds ratio for the composite outcome showed a significant decrease over time after the initial intervention (t = -3.97; P < 0.001), with the slope of the odds ratio versus time curve decreasing from 0.002 (95% CI, 0.001 to 0.004; P = 0.018) to -0.011 (95% CI, -0.01 to -0.018; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative handovers are significantly associated with adverse outcomes even after controlling for multiple confounding variables. Use of a structured handover tool during anesthesia care may attenuate the adverse effect.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Handoffs and the challenges to implementing teamwork training in the perioperative environment

Perioperative handoffs are high-risk events for miscommunications and poor care coordination, which cause patient harm. Extensive research and several interventions have sought to overcome the challenges to perioperative handoff quality and safety, but few efforts have focused on teamwork training. Evidence shows that team training decreases surgical morbidity and mortality, and there remains a significant opportunity to implement teamwork training in the perioperative environment. Current perioperative handoff interventions face significant difficulty with adherence which raises concerns about the sustainability of their impact. In this perspective article, we explain why teamwork is critical to safe and reliable perioperative handoffs and discuss implementation challenges to the five core components of teamwork training programs in the perioperative environment. We outline evidence-based best practices imperative for training success and acknowledge the obstacles to implementing those best practices. Explicitly identifying and discussing these obstacles is critical to designing and implementing teamwork training programs fit for the perioperative environment. Teamwork training will equip providers with the foundational teamwork competencies needed to effectively participate in handoffs and utilize handoff interventions. This will improve team effectiveness, adherence to current perioperative handoff interventions, and ultimately, patient safety.

Improving Handoffs in the Perioperative Environment: A Conceptual Framework of Key Theories, System Factors, Methods, and Core Interventions to Ensure Success

BACKGROUND

Patient handoffs involve the transition of information and responsibility for care from one health care provider to another. They occur frequently during a patient's perioperative care continuum, potentially introducing communication errors that could result in harmful, even fatal consequences. The perioperative environment poses distinct challenges to team communication and patient safety, which in turn leaves the surgical patient uniquely vulnerable to adverse events.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The best way to achieve safe, coordinated handoffs throughout the perioperative continuum has yet to be established. However, a variety of theoretical principles, methods, and interventions have been used successfully in operative and nonoperative contexts among multiple disciplines. Informed by a literature review, the authors describe a conceptual framework for the development, implementation, and sustainment of a multimodal perioperative handoff improvement bundle. The conceptual framework presented here begins with overarching objectives for patient-centered handoff improvement efforts. The article outlines theoretical principles that could be used to guide and inform future multimodal interventions, as well as health care system factors to consider. Further, the authors propose employing data-driven quality improvement and research methodologies to conduct, measure, achieve, and sustain long-term success. Finally, this report describes essential evidence-based interventional components to employ.

IMPLICATIONS

Future efforts to improve handoff safety in the perioperative environment will require a comprehensive evidence-based approach. The authors believe the conceptual framework presented here outlines essential components for success. It integrates proven theoretical frameworks, consideration of system factors, data-driven iterative methods, and synergistic patient-centered interventions.

Quality indicators for anesthesia and perioperative medicine

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Routine monitoring of care quality is fundamental considering the high reported rates of preventable perioperative morbidity and mortality. However, no set of valid and feasible quality indicators is available as the gold standard for comprehensive routine monitoring of the overall quality of perioperative care. The purpose of this review is to describe underlying difficulties, to summarize current trends and initiatives and to outline the perspectives in support of suitable perioperative quality indicators.

RECENT FINDINGS

Most perioperative quality indicators used in the clinical setting are based on low or no evidence. Evidence-based perioperative quality indicators validated for research purposes are not always applicable in routine care. Developing a core set of perioperative quality indicators for clinical practice may benefit from matching feasible routine indicators with evidence-based indicators validated for research, from evaluating additional new indicators, and from including patients' views.

SUMMARY

A core set of valid and feasible quality indicators is essential for monitoring perioperative care quality. The development of such a set may benefit from matching evidence-based indicators with feasible standard indicators and from including patients' views.

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.

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.

Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare: Industry Demands and a Path Forward

This article reviews three industry demands that will impact the future of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare settings. These demands include the growing population of older adults, the increasing use of telemedicine, and a focus on patient-centered care. Following, we discuss a path forward through improved medical teams, error management, and safety testing of medical devices and tools. Future challenges are discussed.