ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a postoperative Handover Assessment Tool (PoHAT) and to evaluate the current practices of the postoperative handover at 2 large European hospitals. BACKGROUND: Postoperative handover is one of the most critical phases in the care of a patient undergoing surgery. However, handovers are largely informal and variable. A thorough understanding of the problem is necessary before safety solutions can be considered. METHODS: Postoperative Handover Assessment Tool (PoHAT) was developed through task analysis, semistructured interviews, literature review, and learned society guidelines. Subsequent validation was done by the Delphi technique. Feasibility and reliability were then evaluated by direct observation of handovers at 2 large European hospitals. Outcomes measures included information omissions, task errors, teamwork evaluation, duration of handover, and number of distractions. RESULTS: The tool was feasible to use and inter-rater reliability was excellent (r = 0.96, P < 0.001). Evaluation of handover at the 2 study sites revealed a median of 8 information omissions per handover at both the centers (IQR 7-10). There were a median of 3 task errors per handover (IQR 2-4). Thirty-five percent of handovers had distractions, which included competing demands for nurse attention, bleeps, and case-irrelevant communication. CONCLUSION: This study has established the feasibility, validity, and reliability of a tool for evaluating postoperative handover. In addition to serving as an objective measure of postoperative handover, the tool can also be used to evaluate the efficacy of any intervention developed to improve this process. The study has also shown that postoperative handover is characterized by incomplete transfer of information and failures in the performance of key tasks.
Subject(s)
Continuity of Patient Care/organization & administration , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Patient Transfer/organization & administration , Surgical Procedures, Operative/methods , Delphi Technique , Female , Humans , Male , Postoperative Care/standards , Postoperative Care/trends , Program Development , Program Evaluation , Reproducibility of Results , United KingdomABSTRACT
We performed the current study to investigate the influence of 2 different hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions, the novel medium molecular weight HES 130/0.4 (6%) and HES 200/0.5 (6%), on plasma and whole blood viscosity in vitro and ex vivo in patients with severe head injury. For the in vitro experiments, blood was incubated with increasing concentrations (0%-50% vol/vol plasma) of either 6% HES 130/0.4 or 6% HES 200/0.5 solution. Plasma viscosity and whole blood viscosity (hematocrit [Hct] 45%) at high (94.5 s(-1)) and low (0.1 s(-1)) shear rates were determined. Both HES solutions increased plasma viscosity, but HES 130/0.4 to a lesser extent than HES 200/0.5. Whole blood viscosity was significantly less with HES 130/0.4 than with HES 200/0.5 at concentrations of 37.5% and larger. In the ex vivo study on 31 patients with severe cranio-cerebral trauma treated randomly with either HES 130/0.4 or HES 200/0.5 over several days, frozen plasma samples were thawed and plasma viscosity was determined. Blood was reconstituted with normal erythrocytes (0, Rh neg, Hct 45%) for whole blood viscosity measurements. In both groups plasma and blood viscosity tended to increase over time without statistical significance. Although the prominent effects found in vitro are not in keeping with the ex vivo data, they are likely to reflect the true clinical situation during repetitive, large-dose HES administration. We therefore conclude that HES 130/0.4 may have hemorheological advantages over conventional HES 200/0.5 when used in large quantities.
