Who's covering our loved ones: surprising barriers in the sign-out process

Evaluation of a Novel Emergency General Surgery Handover: A Prospective Feasibility Study

INTRODUCTION

High-quality health information handovers are critical to optimal patient care and trainee education. The purposes of this study were to assess the feasibility of implementing an emergency general surgery (EGS) morning handover and to explore its impact upon markers of clinical care.

METHODS

This prospective feasibility study was conducted at a single academic tertiary-care medical center following implementation of a novel EGS morning handover process. We assessed organizational perspective through a two-part anonymous survey delivered to the EGS service staff (n = 29) and collected feasibility metrics daily at the morning handover meetings. Exploratory clinical metrics of quality improvement were compared between parallel 5-month periods preimplementation and postimplementation of the handover. Data were compared by descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

One hundred and seventeen patients from March 1, 2022, to July 31, 2022, and 185 patients from March 1, 2023, to July 31, 2023, were identified prehandover and posthandover implementation, respectively, with an increase in time to operating room posting by 49% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.14) and no statistically significant change in length of stay. The average duration of the formalized EGS morning handover was 14 min (95% CI: 12:18-15:42) having an average of 12 questions asked (95% CI: 9.98-14.02) and an average attendance of 70% from essential personnel. Eighty-four percent of postimplementation survey responses indicated positive regard toward the new EGS handover.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of an EGS morning handover is feasible, necessitating further studies to define the impact of the EGS morning handover upon clinical outcomes.

Daily handover in surgery: systematic review and a novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Poor-quality handovers lead to adverse outcomes for patients; however, there is a lack of evidence to support safe surgical handovers. This systematic review aims to summarize the interventions available to improve end-of-shift surgical handover. A novel taxonomy of interventions and outcomes and a modified quality assessment tool are also described.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE®, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles up to April 2023. Comparative studies describing interventions for daily in-hospital surgical handovers between doctors were included. Studies were grouped according to their interventions and outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 6139 citations were retrieved, and 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. The total patient sample sizes in the control and intervention groups were 11 946 and 11 563 patients, respectively. Most studies were pre-/post-intervention cohort studies (92.7%), and most (73.2%) represented level V evidence. The mean quality assessment score was 53.4% (17.1). A taxonomy of handover interventions and outcomes was developed, with interventions including handover tools, process standardization measures, staff education, and the use of mnemonics. More than 25% of studies used a document as the only intervention. Overall, 55 discrete outcomes were assessed in four categories including process (n = 27), staff (n = 14), patient (n = 12) and system-level (n = 2) outcomes. Significant improvements were seen in 51.8%, 78.5%, 58.3% (n = 9761 versus 9312 patients) and 100% of these outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most publications demonstrate that good-quality surgical handover improves outcomes and many interventions appear to be effective; however, studies are methodologically heterogeneous. These novel taxonomies and quality assessment tool will help standardize future studies.

Emerging Professional Identity in Patient Hand-Off Routines: A Practical Application of Performative Face Theory

Recent research of healthcare providers identifies the critical role that professional identity plays in the provision of healthcare, interactions within healthcare teams, and healthcare provider perceptions of their work. However, much remains to be known regarding the role of professional identity in routine interactions for emerging healthcare professionals. This study enriches understandings of this particular issue by exploring pediatric residents' experiences with a structured hand-off tool at a children's hospital in the western United States. This study employed qualitative interview methods and iterative interpretive qualitative data analysis. Participants were 20 residents in a children's hospital. Data analysis indicated that the discourses that disseminate negotiations of face can, and often do, take place during patient hand-off, as the statements exchanged between team members can maintain or threaten face and professional identity. We suggest that shifts in organizational culture and training are necessary to optimize the environment in which residents use structured hand-off. Further, the culture and practice of training emerging physicians should include attention to the important role of hand-off as a critical site of professional identity construction and negotiation.

The practice of reporting adverse events in a teaching hospital

OBJECTIVE

Understanding the practice of reporting adverse events by health professionals.

METHOD

A qualitative case study carried out in a teaching hospital with participants of the Patient Safety Center and the nursing team. The collection took place from May to December 2015, and was conducted through interviews, observation and documentary research to treat the data using Content Analysis.

RESULTS

31 professionals participated in the study. Three categories were elaborated: The practice of reporting adverse events; Barriers in the effective practice of notifications; The importance of reporting adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Notification was permeated by gaps in knowledge, fear of punishment and informal communication, generating underreporting. It is necessary to improve the interaction between leaders and professionals, with an emphasis on communication and educational practice.

Patient Hand-Off iNitiation and Evaluation (PHONE) study: A randomized trial of patient handoff methods

BACKGROUND

As residency work hour restrictions have tightened, transitions of care have become more frequent. Many institutions dedicate significant time and resources to patient handoffs despite the fact that the ideal method is relatively unknown. We sought to compare the effect of a rigorous formal handoff approach to a minimized but focused handoff process on patient outcomes.

METHODS

A randomized prospective trial was conducted at a large teaching hospital over ten months. Patients were assigned to services employing either formal or focused handoffs. Residents were trained on handoff techniques and then observed by trained researchers. Outcome data including mortality, negative events, adverse events, and length of stay were collected and compared between formal and focused handoff groups using t-tests and a multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5157 unique patient-admissions were stratified into the two study groups. Focused handoffs were significantly shorter and included fewer patients (mean 6.3 patients discussed over 6.7 min vs. 35.2 patients over 20.6 min, both p < 0.001). Adverse events occurred during 16.7% of patient admissions. While overall length of stay was slightly shorter in the formal handoff group (5.50 days vs 5.88 days, p = 0.024) in univariate analysis only, there were no significant differences in patient outcomes between the two handoff methods (all p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This large randomized trial comparing two contrasting handoff techniques demonstrated no clinically significant differences in patient outcomes. A minimalistic handoff process may save time and resources without negatively affecting patient outcomes.

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.

Standardizing the culture of trauma rotation handoffs

OBJECTIVE

One of the General Surgery milestones focuses on effective handoffs between residents as they change shifts. Although the content of handoffs is crucial, we recognized that the culture of handoffs was equally important. After the reorganization of the trauma service at our institution, there were difficulties in maintaining the standardized handoff culture. We analyzed the culture of handoffs on the trauma service to create an environment more conducive to effective handoffs.

DESIGN

All trauma activations from 2012 to 2013 were evaluated from our institution's trauma data registry. Data on timing of activations and disposition of the patient were analyzed to understand service work flow. A survey was developed and administered to the residents to assess the culture of trauma handoffs.

SETTING

This work occurred at an academic, state-designated level 1 trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS

All current residents in the general surgery residency who rotated on the trauma service in the last 5 years.

RESULTS

There were 1654 admissions to the trauma service from June 2012 to July 2013. The single busiest hour for trauma admissions (7% of admissions) was the same time the residents were designated to handoff. Interruptions occurred often; 83% of residents indicated that a handoff interruption occurred daily, and 73% indicated a new activation interrupted handoffs weekly. A large majority, 61%, felt patient care was frequently compromised by an ineffective handoff. Similarly, as a direct result of inadequate handoffs, 50% felt uncomfortable answering nurses' pages at night.

CONCLUSIONS

The unique situation of the trauma service impaired the handoff culture for residents. Assessment of our trauma activation flow indicates the timing of handoffs was adversely affecting our resident's ability to handoff effectively, requiring interventions to improve the efficacy and safety of handoffs.

Effectiveness of different nursing handover styles for ensuring continuity of information in hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

An accurate handover of clinical information is of great importance to continuity and safety of care. If clinically relevant information is not shared accurately and in a timely manner it may lead to adverse events, delays in treatment and diagnosis, inappropriate treatment and omission of care. During the last decade the call for interventions to improve handovers has increased. These interventions aim to reduce the risk of miscommunication, misunderstanding and the omission of critical information.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve hospital nursing handover, specifically:to identify which nursing handover style(s) are associated with improved outcomes for patients in the hospital setting and which nursing handover style(s) are associated with improved nursing process outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for primary studies: Cochrane EPOC Group specialised register (to 19 September 2012), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (to 1 March 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to 1 March 2013) OvidSP, EMBASE (1947 to 1 March 2013) OvidSP, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (1980 to 1 March 2013) EbscoHost and ISI Web of Knowledge (Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index) (to 9 July 2012). The Database of Abstracts of Reviews (DARE) was searched for related reviews. We screened the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) http://www.who.int/ictrp/en/ and Current Controlled Trials www.controlled-trials.com/mrct and we conducted a search of grey literature web sites.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs or cluster-RCTs) evaluating any nursing handover style between nurses in a hospital setting with the aim of preventing adverse events or optimising the transfer of accurate essential information required for continuity of care, or both.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 2178 citations, 28 of which were considered potentially relevant. After independent review of the full text of these studies, no eligible studies were identified for inclusion in this review due to the absence of studies with a randomised controlled study design.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence available to support conclusions about the effectiveness of nursing handover styles for ensuring continuity of information in hospitalised patients because we found no studies that fulfilled the methodological criteria for this review. As a consequence, uncertainty about the most effective practice remains. Research efforts should focus on strengthening the evidence abut the effectiveness of nursing handover styles using well designed, rigorous studies. According to current knowledge, the following guiding principles can be applied when redesigning the nursing handover process: face-to-face communication, structured documentation, patient involvement and use of IT technology to support the process.