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.

In situ simulated cardiac arrest exercises to detect system vulnerabilities.

INTRODUCTION: Sudden cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death in the United States. Despite new therapies, progress in this area has been slow, and outcomes remain poor even in the hospital setting, where providers, drugs, and devices are readily available. This is partly attributed to the quality of resuscitation, which is an important determinant of survival for patients who experience cardiac arrest. Systems problems, such as deficiencies in the physical space or equipment design, hospital-level policies, work culture, and poor leadership and teamwork, are now known to contribute significantly to the quality of resuscitation provided. METHODS: We describe an in situ simulation-based quality improvement program that was designed to continuously monitor the cardiac arrest response process for hazards and defects and to detect opportunities for system optimization. RESULTS: A total of 72 simulated unannounced cardiac arrest exercises were conducted between October 2010 and September 2013 at various locations throughout our medical center and at different times of the day. We detected several environmental, human-machine interface, culture, and policy hazards and defects. We used the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to understand the structure, processes, and outcomes related to the hospital's emergency response system. Multidisciplinary solutions were crafted for each of the hazards detected, and the simulation program was used to iteratively test the redesigned processes before implementation in real clinical settings. CONCLUSIONS: We describe an ongoing program that uses in situ simulation to identify and mitigate latent hazards and defects in the hospital emergency response system. The SEIPS model provides a framework for describing and analyzing the structure, processes, and outcomes related to these events.

Patient load effects on response time to critical arrhythmias in cardiac telemetry: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: Remotely monitored patients may be at risk for a delayed response to critical arrhythmias if the telemetry watchers who monitor them are subject to an excessive patient load. There are no guidelines or studies regarding the appropriate number of patients that a single watcher may safely and effectively monitor. Our objective was to determine the impact of increasing the number of patients monitored on response time to simulated cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: Laboratory-based experiment. SUBJECTS: Forty-two remote telemetry technicians and nurses from cardiac units. INTERVENTIONS: Number of patients monitored in a simulation of cardiac telemetry monitoring work. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We carried out a study to compare response times to ventricular fibrillation across five patient loads: 16, 24, 32, 40, and 48 patients. The simulation replicated the work of telemetry watchers using a combination of real recorded patient electrocardiogram signals and a simulated patient experiencing ventricular fibrillation. Study participants were assigned to one of the five patient loads and completed a 4-hour monitoring session, during which they performed tasks-including event documentation and phone calls to report events-similar to real monitoring work. When the simulated patient sustained ventricular fibrillation, the time required to report this arrhythmia was recorded. As patient loads increased, there was a statistically significant increase in response times to the ventricular fibrillation. In addition, frequency of failure to meet a response time goal of less than 20 seconds was significantly higher in the 48-patient condition than in all other conditions. Task performance decreased as patient load increased. CONCLUSIONS: As participants monitored more patients in a laboratory setting, their performance with respect to recognizing critical and noncritical events declined. This study has implications for the design of remote telemetry work and other patient monitoring tasks in critical and intermediate care units.

Can we make postoperative patient handovers safer? A systematic review of the literature.

Postoperative patient handovers are fraught with technical and communication errors and may negatively impact patient safety. We systematically reviewed the literature on handover of care from the operating room to postanesthesia or intensive care units and summarized process and communication recommendations based on these findings. From >500 papers, we identified 31 dealing with postoperative handovers. Twenty-four included recommendations for structuring the handover process or information transfer. Several recommendations were broadly supported, including (1) standardize processes (e.g., through the use of checklists and protocols); (2) complete urgent clinical tasks before the information transfer; (3) allow only patient-specific discussions during verbal handovers; (4) require that all relevant team members be present; and (5) provide training in team skills and communication. Only 4 of the studies developed an intervention and formally assessed its impact on different process measures. All 4 interventions improved metrics of effectiveness, efficiency, and perceived teamwork. Most of the papers were cross-sectional studies that identified barriers to safe, effective postoperative handovers including the incomplete transfer of information and other communication issues, inconsistent or incomplete teams, absent or inefficient execution of clinical tasks, and poor standardization. An association between poor-quality handovers and adverse events was also demonstrated. More innovative research is needed to define optimal patient handovers and to determine the effect of handover quality on patient outcomes.