Enhancing patient safety: detection of in-hospital hazards and effect of training on detection (by training in a low-fidelity simulation Room of Improvement based on hospital-specific CIRS cases).

IMPORTANCE: Adequate situational awareness in patient care increases patient safety and quality of care. To improve situational awareness, an innovative, low-fidelity simulation method referred to as Room of Improvement, has proven effective in various clinical settings. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact after 3 months of Room of Improvement training on the ability to detect patient safety hazards during an intensive care unit shift handover, based on critical incident reporting system (CIRS) cases reported in the same hospital. METHODS: In this educational intervention, 130 healthcare professionals observed safety hazards in a Room of Improvement in a 2 (time 1 vs time 2)×2 (alone vs in a team) factorial design. The hazards were divided into immediately critical and non-critical. RESULTS: The results of 130 participants were included in the analysis. At time 1, no statistically significant differences were found between individuals and teams, either overall or for non-critical errors. At time 2, there was an increase in the detection rate of all implemented errors for teams compared with time 1, but not for individuals. The detection rate for critical errors was higher than for non-critical errors at both time points, with individual and group results at time 2 not significantly different from those at time 1. An increase in the perception of safety culture was found in the pre-post test for the questions whether the handling of errors is open and professional and whether errors are discussed in the team. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate a sustained learning effect after 12 weeks, with collaboration in teams leading to a significantly better outcome. The training improved the actual error detection rates, and participants reported improved handling and discussion of errors in their daily work. This indicates a subjectively improved safety culture among healthcare workers as a result of the situational awareness training in the Room of Improvement. As this method promotes a culture of safety, it is a promising tool for a well-functioning CIRS that closes the loop.

Improving clinical reasoning and communication during handover: An intervention study of the BRIEF-C tool.

BACKGROUND: Existing handover communication tools often lack a clear theoretical foundation, have limited psychometric evidence, and overlook effective communication strategies for enhancing diagnostic reasoning. This oversight becomes critical as communication breakdowns during handovers have been implicated in poor patient care. To address these issues, we developed a structured communication tool: Background, Responsible diagnosis, Included differential diagnosis, Excluded differential diagnosis, Follow-up, and Communication (BRIEF-C). It is informed by cognitive bias theory, shows evidence of reliability and validity of its scores, and includes strategies for actively sending and receiving information in medical handovers. DESIGN: A pre-test post-test intervention study. SETTING: Inpatient internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery units at one tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTION: The BRIEF-C tool was presented to internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery faculty and residents who participated in an in-person educational session, followed by a 2-week period where they practised using it with feedback. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical handovers were audiorecorded over 1 week for the pre- and again for the post-periods, then transcribed for analysis. Two faculty raters from internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery scored the transcripts of handovers using the BRIEF-C framework. The two raters were blinded to the time periods. RESULTS: A principal component analysis identified two subscales on the BRIEF-C: diagnostic clinical reasoning and communication, with high interitem consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.82 and 0.99, respectively). One sample t-test indicated significant improvement in diagnostic clinical reasoning (pre-test: M=0.97, SD=0.50; post-test: M=1.31, SD=0.64; t(64)=4.26, p<0.05, medium to large Cohen's d=0.63) and communication (pre-test: M=0.02, SD=0.16; post-test: M=0.48, SD=0.83); t(64)=4.52, p<0.05, large Cohen's d=0.83). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates evidence supporting the reliability and validity of scores on the BRIEF-C as good indicators of diagnostic clinical reasoning and communication shared during handovers.

Interfacility Referral Communication for PICU Transfer.

OBJECTIVES: For patients requiring transfer to a higher level of care, excellent interfacility communication is essential. Our objective was to characterize verbal handoffs for urgent interfacility transfers of children to the PICU and compare these characteristics with known elements of high-quality intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs. DESIGN: Mixed methods retrospective study of audio-recorded referral calls between referring clinicians and receiving PICU physicians for urgent interfacility PICU transfers. SETTING: Academic tertiary referral PICU. PATIENTS: Children 0-18 years old admitted to a single PICU following interfacility transfer over a 4-month period (October 2019 to January 2020). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We reviewed interfacility referral phone calls for 49 patients. Referral calls between clinicians lasted a median of 9.7 minutes (interquartile range, 6.8-14.5 min). Most referring clinicians provided information on history (96%), physical examination (94%), test results (94%), and interventions (98%). Fewer clinicians provided assessments of illness severity (87%) or code status (19%). Seventy-seven percent of referring clinicians and 6% of receiving PICU physicians stated the working diagnosis. Only 9% of PICU physicians summarized information received. Interfacility handoffs usually involved: 1) indirect references to illness severity and diagnosis rather than explicit discussions, 2) justifications for PICU admission, 3) statements communicating and addressing uncertainty, and 4) statements indicating the referring hospital's reliance on PICU resources. Interfacility referral communication was similar to intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs with some key differences: 1) use of contextual information for appropriate PICU triage, 2) difference in expertise between communicating clinicians, and 3) reliance of referring clinicians and PICU physicians on each other for accurate information and medical/transport guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Interfacility PICU referral communication shared characteristics with intrahospital shift-to-shift handoffs; however, communication did not adhere to known elements of high-quality handovers. Structured tools specific to PICU interfacility referral communication must be developed and investigated for effectiveness in improving communication and patient outcomes.

Effect of Intraoperative Handovers of Anesthesia Care on Mortality, Readmission, or Postoperative Complications Among Adults: The HandiCAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intraoperative handovers of anesthesia care are common. Handovers might improve care by reducing physician fatigue, but there is also an inherent risk of losing critical information. Large observational analyses report associations between handover of anesthesia care and adverse events, including higher mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of handovers of anesthesia care on postoperative morbidity and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted in 12 German centers with patients enrolled between June 2019 and June 2021 (final follow-up, July 31, 2021). Eligible participants had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 or 4 and were scheduled for major inpatient surgery expected to last at least 2 hours. Interventions: A total of 1817 participants were randomized to receive either a complete handover to receive anesthesia care by another clinician (n = 908) or no handover of anesthesia care (n = 909). None of the participating institutions used a standardized handover protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or serious postoperative complications. There were 19 secondary outcomes, including the components of the primary composite, along with intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. Results: Among 1817 randomized patients, 1772 (98%; mean age, 66 [SD, 12] years; 997 men [56%]; and 1717 [97%] with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 3) completed the trial. The median total duration of anesthesia was 267 minutes (IQR, 206-351 minutes), and the median time from start of anesthesia to first handover was 144 minutes in the handover group (IQR, 105-213 minutes). The composite primary outcome occurred in 268 of 891 patients (30%) in the handover group and in 284 of 881 (33%) in the no handover group (absolute risk difference [RD], -2.5%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 1.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10; P = .27). Nineteen of 889 patients (2.1%) in the handover group and 30 of 873 (3.4%) in the no handover group experienced all-cause 30-day mortality (absolute RD, -1.3%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.2%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.10; P = .11); 115 of 888 (13%) vs 136 of 872 (16%) were readmitted to the hospital (absolute RD, -2.7%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 0.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05; P = .12); and 195 of 890 (22%) vs 189 of 874 (22%) experienced serious postoperative complications (absolute RD, 0.3%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28; P = .91). None of the 19 prespecified secondary end points differed significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing extended surgical procedures, there was no significant difference between the patients randomized to receive handover of anesthesia care from one clinician to another, compared with the no handover group, in the composite primary outcome of mortality, readmission, or serious postoperative complications within 30 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04016454.

Implementación de un programa basado en IPASS en UCI / Implementation of an IPASS-based program in the ICU

Introducción: El uso de herramientas estandarizadas como estrategia de comunicación para brindar información relevante, precisa y actualizada, forma parte de las iniciativas de calidad en las instituciones que cumplen altos estándares en la atención de pacientes. Objetivo: Describir la implementación de un programa de traspaso (IPASS) en unidades de cuidados intensivos pediátricos específicos. Material y métodos: Estudio cuasi-experimental antes y después de una intervención, no controlado, utilizando como sujetos a los profesionales de la salud involucrados en traspasos de pacientes de la unidad de terapia intensiva cardiovascular (UCI 35) e inmunosuprimidos (UCI 72). La intervención consistió en la introducción de un paquete de medidas de estandarización del traspaso de pacientes que consta de: una herramienta escrita, una mnemotecnia oral, una capacitación de trabajo en equipo, observación y devolución estandarizada de los traspasos, basados en la metodología IPASS. Se realizó además una encuesta de percepción de seguridad, tanto en la etapa pre y post intervención. Se comparó el cumplimiento de cada componente del traspaso antes y después de la intervención mediante la prueba de chi2 . Resultados: Se realizaron 101 observaciones de traspaso y 56 encuestas. La mediana de pacientes por cada observación fue 6 (r: 4 a 12) y el tiempo promedio de 26± 11 min. Conclusiones: El uso de un paquete de medidas de estandarización del traspaso de pacientes posquirúrgicos cardiovasculares e inmunosuprimidos aumentó significativamente la presencia de información clave sobre criticidad de la enfermedad, acciones y situaciones de contingencia, junto con la inclusión de la síntesis por el receptor del traspaso (AU)

Introduction: The use of standardized tools as a communication strategy to provide relevant, accurate, and up-to-date information is part of quality initiatives in institutions that adhere to high standards in patient care. Objective: To describe the implementation of a handoff program (IPASS) in specific pediatric intensive care units. Methods: An uncontrolled, quasi-experimental, beforeand-after study. Subjects were healthcare providers involved in patient handoffs in the cardiovascular (ICU 35) and immunocompromised-patient (ICU 72) intensive care units. The intervention consisted of the introduction of a bundle to standardize patient handoff consisting of: a written tool, an oral mnemonic, teamwork training, observation, and standardized feedback for handoffs based on the IPASS methodology. A safety perception survey was also carried out, both in the pre- and post-intervention stage. Compliance with each handoff component before and after the intervention was compared using the Chi-squared test. Results: 101 handoff observations and 56 surveys were conducted. The median number of patients per observation was 6 (r: 4 to 12) and the mean handoff time was 26±11 min. Conclusions: The use of a standardized handoff bundle for post-surgical cardiovascular and immunocompromised patients significantly increased the availability of key information on disease severity, actions, and contingency situations, as well as a synthesis by the handoff receiver (AU)

Association Between Handover of Anesthesiology Care and 1-Year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Importance: Handovers of anesthesia care from one anesthesiologist to another is an important intraoperative event. Despite its association with adverse events after noncardiac surgery, its impact in the context of cardiac surgery remains unclear. Objective: To compare the outcomes of patients who were exposed to anesthesia handover vs those who were unexposed to anesthesia handover during cardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, included Ontario residents who were 18 years or older and had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic, mitral, tricuspid valve, or thoracic aorta surgical procedures between 2008 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were non-Ontario residency status and other concomitant procedures. Statistical analysis was conducted from April 2021 to June 2021, and data collection occurred between November 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: Complete handover of anesthesia care, where the case is completed by the replacement anesthesiologist. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were mortality within 30 days and 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes were patient-defined adverse cardiac and noncardiac events (PACE), intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital lengths of stay (LOS). Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the propensity score was used to estimate adjusted effect measures. Mortality was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model, PACE using a cause-specific hazard model with death as a competing risk, and LOS using Poisson regression. Results: Of the 102 156 patients in the cohort, 25 207 (24.7%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (10.8) years; and 72 843 of surgical procedures (71.3%) were performed in teaching hospitals. Handover occurred in 1926 patients (1.9%) and was associated with higher risks of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.41-2.54) and 1-year mortality (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.31-2.12), as well as longer ICU (risk ratio [RR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22-1.68) and hospital (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.28) LOS. There was no statistically significant association between handover and PACE (30 days: HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79-1.49; 1 year: HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: Handover of anesthesia care during cardiac surgical procedures was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates and increased health care resource use. Further research is needed to evaluate and systematically improve the handover process qualitatively.

STEPP IN: A Multicenter Quality Improvement Collaborative Standardizing Postoperative Handoffs.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce care failures by 30% through implementation of standardized communication processes for postoperative handoff in NICU patients undergoing surgery over 12 months and sustained over 6 months. METHODS: Nineteen Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium centers collaborated in a quality improvement initiative to reduce postoperative care failures in a surgical neonatal setting by decreasing respiratory care failures and all other communication failures. Evidence-based clinical practice recommendations and a collaborative framework supported local teams' implementation of standardized postoperative handoff communication. Process measures included compliance with center-defined handoff staff presence, use of center-defined handoff tool, and the proportion of handoffs with interruptions. Participant handoff satisfaction was the balancing measure. Baseline data were collected for 8 months, followed by a 12-month action phase and 7-month sustain phase. RESULTS: On average, 181 postoperative handoffs per month were monitored across sites, and 320 respondents per month assessed the handoff process. Communication failures specific to respiratory care decreased by 73.2% (8.2% to 4.6% and with a second special cause signal to 2.2%). All other communication care failures decreased by 49.4% (17% to 8.6%). Eighty-four percent of participants reported high satisfaction. Compliance with use of the handoff tool and required staff attendance increased whereas interruptions decreased over the project time line. CONCLUSIONS: Team engagement within a quality improvement framework had a positive impact on the perioperative handoff process for high-risk surgical neonates. We improved care as demonstrated by a decrease in postoperative care failures while maintaining high provider satisfaction.

Standardised handover process with checklist improves quality and safety of care in the postanaesthesia care unit: the Postanaesthesia Team Handover trial.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunication is a leading cause of preventable incidents in healthcare. A number of checklists have been created in an attempt to improve patient outcomes with only a small impact. However, the 2009 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist demonstrated benefits in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to determine whether use of a Postanaesthesia Team Handover (PATH) checklist would reduce hypoxaemic events in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: This single-centre, prospective, pre-/post-implementation study was conducted between February 2019 and July 2020 in the PACU of Versailles Private Hospital, Paris, France. Pre-PATH implementation data were collected for 294 consecutive adult patients (≥18 yr old) admitted to the PACU and post-PATH implementation data were collected for 293 consecutive patients. The primary outcome was the rate of hypoxaemic events post-surgery during PACU stay. RESULTS: The rates of hypoxaemic events were 4.1% (11/267 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 2.3-7.2%]) before the PATH checklist was introduced and 0.8% (2/266 [95% CI: 0.2-2.7%]) after. Patients in the PATH group were 5.6 times (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI: 1.3-33.6], P=0.041) less likely to have a hypoxaemic event than those in the control group. The handover process in the PATH checklist group also had significantly less interruptions (38.6% control vs 20.7% PATH; OR=2.5 [95% CI: 1.7-3.7]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the PATH checklist in adult patients post-surgery was associated with a reduction in the rate of hypoxaemic events in the PACU. These findings support standardisation of the handover process with checklists following anaesthesia and surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03972423.

Adverse events experienced with intrahospital transfer of critically ill patients: A national survey.

ABSTRACT: Research that focuses on transfers to and from the intensive care unit (ICU) could highlight important patients' safety issues. This study aims to describe healthcare workers' (HCWs) practices involved in patient transfers to or from the ICU.This cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs during the Saudi Critical Care Society's annual International Conference, April 2017. Responses were assessed using Likert scales and frequencies. Bivariate analysis was used to evaluate the significance of different indicators.Overall, 312 HCWs participated in this study. Regarding transfer to ICUs, the most frequently reported complications were deterioration in respiratory status (51.4%), followed by deterioration in hemodynamic status (46.5%), and missing clinical information (35.5%). Regarding transfers from ICUs to the general ward, the most commonly reported complications were changes in respiratory status (55.6%), followed by incomplete clinical information (37.9%), and change in hemodynamic conditions (29%). The most-used models for communicating transfers were written documents in electronic health records (69.3%) and verbal communication (62.8%). One-fourth of the respondents were not aware of the Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) method of patients' handover. Pearson's test of correlation showed that the HCW's perceived satisfaction with their hospital transfer guidelines showed significant negative correlation with their reported transfer-related complications (r = -0.27, P < .010).Hemodynamic and respiratory status deterioration is representing significant adverse events among patients transferred to or from the ICU. Factors controlling the perceived satisfaction of HCWs involved in patients, transfer to and from the ICU need to be addressed, focusing on their compliance to the hospital-wide transfer and handover policies. Quality improvement initiatives could improve patient safety to transfer patients to and from the ICU and minimize the associated adverse events.

Completeness of the operating room to intensive care unit handover: a matter of time?

BACKGROUND: Handovers of post-anesthesia patients to the intensive care unit (ICU) are often unstructured and performed under time pressure. Hence, they bear a high risk of poor communication, loss of information and potential patient harm. The aim of this study was to investigate the completeness of information transfer and the quantity of information loss during post anesthesia handovers of critical care patients. METHODS: Using a self-developed checklist, including 55 peri-operative items, patient handovers from the operation room or post anesthesia care unit to the ICU staff were observed and documented in real time. Observations were analyzed for the amount of correct and completely transferred patient data in relation to the written documentation within the anesthesia record and the patient's chart. RESULTS: During a ten-week study period, 97 handovers were included. The mean duration of a handover was 146 seconds, interruptions occurred in 34% of all cases. While some items were transferred frequently (basic patient characteristics [72%], surgical procedure [83%], intraoperative complications [93.8%]) others were commonly missed (underlying diseases [23%], long-term medication [6%]). The completeness of information transfer is associated with the handover's duration [B coefficient (95% CI): 0.118 (0.084-0.152), p<0.001] and increases significantly in handovers exceeding a duration of 2 minutes (24% ± 11.7 vs. 40% ± 18.04, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Handover completeness is affected by time pressure, interruptions, and inappropriate surroundings, which increase the risk of information loss. To improve completeness and ensure patient safety, an adequate time span for handover, and the implementation of communication tools are required.

Assessment and improvement of junior doctor handover in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Effective handover between junior doctors is widely accepted as essential for patient safety. The British Medical Association in association with the National Health Service (NHS) National Patient Safety Agency and NHS Modernisation Agency have produced clear guidance regarding the contents and setting for a safe and efficient handover. We aimed to understand current junior doctor's opinions on the handover process in a London emergency department (ED), with subsequent assessment, and any necessary improvement, of handover practices within the department. METHODS: In a London ED, a baseline survey was completed by the senior house officer (SHO) cohort to gauge current opinions of the existing handover process. Concurrently, a blinded prospective audit of handover practises was conducted. Multiple improvement strategies were subsequently implemented and assessed via Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. A standard operating procedure was initially introduced and 'rolled out' throughout the department. This intervention was followed by development of an electronic handover note to ease completion of a satisfactory handover. Additional surveys were conducted to continually assess SHO opinion on how the handover process was developing. The final improvement strategy was formal handover teaching at the SHO induction. RESULTS: Baseline audit and SHO survey highlighted several opportunities for improvement. 5 handover components were deemed essential: (1) documented handover note; (2) doctor's names; (3) history of presenting complaint; (4) ED actions; and (5) ongoing plan. The frequency of these components saw significant improvement by completion of the final PDSA. Following SHO rotation, all of the essential components fell, only to recover after the next improvement strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Junior doctors in a London ED were not satisfied with the current SHO handover process, and handover practices were not adequate. While the rotational nature of the SHO cohort makes sustained change challenging, implementation of thoughtful and realistic improvement strategies can significantly improve handover quality.

Evaluation of Intraoperative Hand-Off Frequency, Duration, and Context: A Mixed Methods Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hand-offs in the operating room contribute to poor communication, reduced team function, and may be poorly coordinated with other activities. Conversely, they may represent a missed opportunity for improved communication. We sought to better understand the coordination and impact of intraoperative hand-offs. METHODS: We prospectively audio-video (AV) recorded 10 operations and evaluated intraoperative hand-offs. Data collected included percentage of time team members were absent due to breaks, relationships between hand-offs and intraoperative events (incision, surgical counts), and occurrences of simultaneous hand-offs. We also identified announcement that a hand-off had occurred and anchoring, in which team members not involved in the hand-off participated and provided information. RESULTS: Spanning 2919 min of audio-video data, there were 74 hand-offs (range, 4-14 per case) totaling 225.2 min, representing 7.7% of time recorded. Thirty-two (45.1%) hand-offs were interrupted or delayed because of competing activities; eight hand-offs occurred during an instrument or laparotomy pad count. Six cases had simultaneous hand-offs; two cases had two episodes of simultaneous hand-offs. Eight hand-offs included an announcement. Seven included anchoring. Evaluating both temporary and permanent hand-offs, one or more original team members was absent for 40.7% of time recorded and >one team member was absent for 20.5% of time recorded. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative hand-offs are frequent and not well coordinated with intraoperative events including counts and other hand-offs. Anchoring and announced hand-offs occurred in a small proportion of cases. Future work must focus on optimizing timing, content, and participation in intraoperative hand-offs.

Exploring current physicians' failure to communicate clinical feedback back to transferring physicians after transitions of patient care responsibility: A mixed methods study.

INTRODUCTION: After patient care transitions occur, communication from the current physician back to the transferring physician may be an important source of clinical feedback for learning from outcomes of previous reasoning processes. Factors associated with this communication are not well understood. This study clarifies how often, and for what reasons, current physicians do or do not communicate back to transferring physicians about transitioned patients. METHODS: In 2018, 38 physicians at two academic teaching hospitals were interviewed about communication decisions regarding 618 transitioned patients. Researchers recorded quantitative and qualitative data in field notes, then coded communication rationales using directed content analysis. Descriptive statistics and mixed effects logistic regression analyses identified communication patterns and examined associations with communication for three conditions: When current physicians 1) changed transferring physicians' clinical decisions, 2) perceived transferring physicians' clinical uncertainty, and 3) perceived transferring physicians' request for communication. RESULTS: Communication occurred regarding 17% of transitioned patients. Transferring physicians initiated communication in 55% of these cases. Communication did not occur when current physicians 1) changed transferring physicians' clinical decisions (119 patients), 2) perceived transferring physicians' uncertainty (97 patients), and 3) perceived transferring physicians' request for communication (12 patients). Rationales for no communication included case contextual, structural, interpersonal, and cultural factors. Perceived uncertainty and request for communication were positively associated with communication (p < 0.001) while a changed clinical decision was not. DISCUSSION: Current physicians communicate infrequently with transferring physicians after assuming patient care responsibilities. Structural and interpersonal barriers to communication may be amenable to change. Clarity about transferring physicians' uncertainty and desire for communication back may improve clinical feedback communication.

[Observational study of the handover with the SBAR method at Bari Polyclinic complex]. / Studio osservazionale del passaggio di consegne col metodo SBAR nell'Azienda Consorziale Policlinico di Bari.

INTRODUCTION: The handing over of deliveries between the emergency service personnel 118 and the Emergency Medicine and Surgery staff (MeCHAU) is fundamental for the continuity of care for the patient. The study aims to investigate the methods of handing over medical staff from the ambulance to the MeCHAU nurses of the Policlinico di Bari to verify if it has been applied and, if so, to what extent the SBAR method has been used ("Situation", "Background", "Assessment", "Recommendation") recommended both in literature and by the World Health Organization (WHO). METHOD: A card was created referring to the SBAR method and was applied in all cases of trauma and illness accepted by the MeCHAU in the period between July-August 2017. For each case, the following were evaluated: start and end delivery times, total time, color code assigned by 118, color code assigned by MeCHAU, type of ambulance assigned. RESULTS: A total of 140 deliveries were considered. Of these, the average time in relation to the color code (in minutes), the number of information received based on the color code, whether or not the SBAR order was complied with and the completeness of deliveries based on the type was evaluated. of ambulance assigned from 118. CONCLUSIONS: From the results obtained, the transmission of deliveries has not been shown to be effective, resulting in prolonged times and a low percentage of information provided for all color codes. It follows that the use of the SBAR method in the handing over of deliveries could improve the effectiveness of the intervention and make the delivery.

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.

Handover Practices in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: A Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The handover period has been identified as a particularly vulnerable period for communication breakdown leading to patient safety events. Clear and concise handover is especially critical in high-acuity care settings such as trauma, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care. There is no consensus for the most effective and efficient means of evaluating or performing handover in this population. We aimed to characterize the current handover practices and perceptions in trauma and acute care surgery. METHODS: A survey was sent to 2265 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma via email regarding handoff practices at their institution. Respondents were queried regarding their practice setting, average census, level of trauma center, and patients (trauma, emergency general surgery, and/or intensive care). Data regarding handover practices were gathered including frequency of handover, attendees, duration, timing, and formality. Finally, perceptions of handover including provider satisfaction, desire for improvement, and effectiveness were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty surveys (17.1%) were completed. The majority (73.4%) of respondents practiced at level 1 trauma centers (58.9%) and were trauma/emergency general surgeons (86.5%). Thirty-five percent of respondents reported a formalized handover and 52% used a standardized tool for handover. Only 18% of respondents had ever received formal training, but most (51.6%) thought this training would be helpful. Eighty-one percent of all providers felt handover was essential for patient care, and 77% felt it prevented harm. Seventy-two percent thought their handover practice needed improvement, and this was more common as the average patient census increased. The most common suggestions for improvement were shorter and more concise handover (41.6%), different handover medium (24.5%), and adding verbal communication (13.9%). CONCLUSION: Trauma and emergency general surgeons perceive handover as essential for patient care and the majority desire improvement of their current handover practices. Methods identified to improve the handover process include standardization, simplification, and verbal interaction, which allows for shared understanding. Formal education and best practice guidelines should be developed.

Challenges in the handover process of the new-born with congenital heart disease.

INTRODUCTION: A new-born with congenital heart disease requires care that involves numerous specialists. Such care can be provided at tertiary referral hospitals and transportation is often needed. A crucial factor is the handover process, when the child is born at a distance, with transfer of both professional responsibility and continued care from one healthcare professional to another. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify crucial factors for the receiving healthcare professionals that influence the handover process of the new-born with congenital heart disease. METHOD: A cross-sectional questionnaire study with 53 receiving healthcare professionals at a paediatric intensive care unit at a tertiary referral university hospital in Sweden. The response rate was 48/53. Numerical variables were computed and a content analysis was performed. FINDINGS: The handover process of the new-born with heart disease transferred to a tertiary referral hospital is complicated. A clear majority of the respondents identified one or more flaws in this process. Crucial factors identified were: relevant and structured information, clear communication, adequate patient knowledge and an enabling environment. CONCLUSION: A standardised procedure in the different phases of the handover process could improve communication, the working situation for healthcare professionals and thereby increase patient safety.

Reduction of early inpatient transfers and rapid response team calls after implementation of an emergency department intake huddle process.

Patients admitted to the hospital and requiring a subsequent transfer to a higher level of care have increased morbidity, mortality and length of stay compared with patients who do not require a transfer during their hospital stay. We identified that a high number of patients admitted to our intermediate care (IMC) unit required a rapid response team (RRT) call and an early (<24 hours) transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU). A quality improvement project was initiated with the goal to reduce subsequent early transfers to the ICU and RRT calls. We started by focusing on IMC patients, implementing acuity-based nursing assignments and standardised daily nursing rounds in the IMC aiming to reduce early patient transfers to the ICU. Then, we expanded to all patients admitted to a hospital medical unit from the emergency department (ED), targeting patients with gastrointestinal (GI) bleed and sepsis who were at a higher risk for early transfer to the ICU. We then created an ED intake huddle process that over time was refined to target patients with SIRS criteria with an elevated serum lactic acid level greater than 2.0 mmol/L or a GI bleed with a haematocrit value less than 24%. These interventions resulted in an 10.8 percentage points (31.7% (225/710) to 20.9% (369/1764)) decrease in the early transfers to the ICU for all hospital medicine patients admitted to the hospital from the ED. Mean RRT calls/day decreased by 17%, from 3.0 mean calls/day preintervention to 2.5 mean calls/day postintervention. These quality improvement initiatives have sustained successful outcomes for over 6 years due to integrating enhanced team communication as organisational cultural norm that has become the standard.

The critical care nurse's perception of handover: A phenomenographic study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe variations in critical care nurses' perceptions of handover. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: Phenomenographic design using individual interviews for data-collection. SETTING: The critical care nurses participating in the study were recruited from critical care units in three hospitals in Sweden. FINDINGS: Five descriptive categories were identified: Communication between staff, Opportunity for learning, Patient-centred information gathering as a basis for continuous care, Responsibility for transfers, and Patient safety and quality of care. CONCLUSION: Nursing handover is a complex phenomenon, which is understood in various ways. Handover is mediated through communication and marks a shift in responsibility. Handover seems to be related to patient safety and quality of care. There is potential for improvement in the quality of nursing handover in clinical praxis, but further research is needed to determine ways of improving quality of handover.

Cohort Study on the Implementation of a Surgical Checklist from the Operating Room to the Postanesthesia Care Unit.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence of a well-structured information transfer that prevents the loss of information relevant to patient care. DESIGN: Pre-post cohort study on the implementation of a surgical checklist from the operating room to postanesthesia care unit. METHODS: Main variable was the transfer of relevant and correct information. The secondary variables include time, interruptions, and satisfaction. FINDINGS: In the prechecklist stage, 59 transfers were collected; with an average time of 68.5 seconds, 41.7% of the transfers encountered interruptions, and only 8.5% of the reports were complete with all data. After instituting the checklist, 63 transfers were analyzed with an average time of 96.4 seconds, no interruptions occurred in 71.3% of the transfers, and all the items were transmitted in 92.1% of the cases. Number of interferences decreased. Transfer time increased significantly, but 80.3% of staff found the checklist useful. CONCLUSIONS: A written and structured checklist minimizes the loss of relevant information, thus improving safety in the process.