Association of intraoperative anaesthesia handovers with patient morbidity and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nighttime Treatment of Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms Are Associated With Poor Outcomes

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rebleeding of ruptured intracranial aneurysms (RIA) is associated with poor outcomes. Although immediate treatment of RIAs is preferred, optimal treatment timing is multifactorial and may be a complicating factor for achieving the best outcomes. The objective of this study was to compare outcomes for patients with RIAs as a function of treatment time of day. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that examines how treatment time of day influences treatment outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center study included all patients who were treated, either surgically or endovascularly, for RIAs within 24 hours after admission. Exclusion criteria were blister, mycotic or giant aneurysms, or incomplete records. The modified Rankin Scale was used to evaluate treatment outcomes using multivariate analysis. Nighttime treatment was defined when greater than 50% of the procedure was performed between 10 pm and 7 am, with other times classified as daytime treatment. Off-hours treatment was defined when more than 50% of the procedure was performed between 7 pm and 7 am, with other times classified as on-hours.

RESULTS

This study included 493 patients, with 84.2% (415) treated during the daytime, 15.8% (78) during the nighttime, 67.5% (333) during on-hours, and 32.5% (160) during off-hours. These groups did not differ according to age, sex, World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies and Fisher scales, aneurysm size, location, and surgical or endovascular treatment. Outcomes were favorable (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) for 72.0% (299) of patients treated during the daytime and 60.0% (46) of patients treated during the nighttime. Aneurysm treatment during the nighttime (OR: 0.50 [95% CI: 0.28-0.91], P = .023) but not during off-hours (OR: 0.76 [0.50-1.14], P = .18) was independently associated with unfavorable outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Nighttime treatment was associated with poorer outcomes. Further studies are needed to evaluate outcomes if treatment is postponed to daytime hours.

Improved recall of handover information in a simulated emergency - A randomised controlled trial

Background

Handovers during medical emergencies are challenging due to time-critical, dynamic and oftentimes unorderly and distracting situations. We evaluated the effect of distraction-reduced clinical surroundings during handover on (1) the recall of handover information, (2) the recall of information from the surroundings and (3) self-reported workload in a simulated in-hospital cardiac arrest scenario.

Methods

In a parallel group design, emergency team leaders were randomly assigned to receive a structured handover of a cardio-pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) either inside the room ("inside group") right next to the ongoing CPR or in front of the room ("outside group") with no audio-visual distractions from the ongoing CPR. Based on the concept of situation awareness, the primary outcome was a handover score for the content of the handover (0-19 points) derived from the pieces of information given during handover. Furthermore, we assessed team leaders' perception of their surroundings during the scenario (0-5 points) and they rated their subjective workload using the NASA Task Load Index.

Results

The outside group (n = 30) showed significant better recall of handover information than the inside group (n = 30; mean difference = 1.86, 95% CI = 0.67 to 3.06, p = 0.003). The perception of the surroundings (n = 60; mean difference = -0.27, 95% CI = -0.85 to 0.32, p = 0.365) and the NASA Task Load Index (n = 58; mean difference = 1.1; p = 0.112) did not differ between the groups.

Conclusions

Concerning in-hospital emergencies, a structured handover in a distraction reduced environment can improve information uptake of the team leader.

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

Patient safety and staff psychological safety: A mixed methods study on aspects of teamwork in the operating room

Objectives

To predict the amount of teamwork that takes place throughout a surgery, based on performing a preoperative safety standards (surgical safety checklist and surgical count) and to explore factors affecting patient safety and staff psychological safety during a surgery, based on interprofessional teamwork.

Methods

This mixed methods study included quantitative and qualitative analyses. Quantitative data included 2,184 direct observations of surgical cases with regard to the performance of safety standards during surgeries in 29 hospitals, analyzed using multivariate binary logistic regressions. Qualitative data were obtained from an analysis of 25 semi-structured interviews with operating room (OR) clinicians and risk managers, using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

Results

Analysis of the OR observations revealed that a lack of teamwork in the preoperative "sign-in" phase doubled the chances of there being a lack of teamwork during surgery [odds ratio = 1.972, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.741, 2.233, p < 0.001] and during the "time-out" phase (odds ratio = 2.142, 95% CI 1.879, 2.441, p < 0.001). Consistent presence of staff during surgery significantly increased teamwork, by 21% for physicians and 24% for nurses (p < 0.05), but staff turnover significantly decreased teamwork, by 73% for physicians (p < 0.05). Interview data indicated that patient safety and staff psychological safety are related to a perception of a collaborative team role among OR staff, with mutual commitment and effective interprofessional communication.

Conclusions

Healthcare organizations should consider the key finding of this study when trying to identify factors that affect teamwork during a surgery. Effective preoperative teamwork positively affects intraoperative teamwork, as does the presence of more clinicians participating in a surgery, with no turnover. Other factors include working in a fixed, designated team, led by a surgeon, which functions with effective interprofessional communication that promotes patient safety and staff psychological safety.

Anesthesiology Patient Handoff Education Interventions: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiology provider handoffs are complex, occur frequently, and have been associated with adverse patient outcomes. The authors sought to determine the degree to which anesthesiology handoff studies with educational interventions incorporated tenets of educational best practices.

METHODS

The research team conducted a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature focused on handoff studies with education interventions that included anesthesiology providers. Searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, and ERIC (2010-September 2021). Each phase of the article review process included at least two trained independent reviewers. In addition, pairs of trained reviewers abstracted study characteristics RESULTS: Twenty-six articles met inclusion criteria. Two thirds (18/26; 69.2%) were published after 2017, and almost three fourths (19/26; 73.1%) included learners. Education intervention descriptions varied, with only 15.4% (4/26) briefly mentioning education theory, 7.7% (2/26) with clear education objectives, and 7.7% (2/26) assessing curriculum via participant satisfaction. Most (22/26; 84.6%) assessed Kirkpatrick's level 3 (handoff behavior change), and 26.9% (7/26) assessed level 4b (patient outcomes). Medical education quality scores were low (range 6-24, mean 11.3; max 32), with more than half (15/26; 57.7%) receiving scores ≤ 10.

CONCLUSION

Educational interventions demonstrate marked heterogeneity in the use of educational theoretical concepts and established curriculum development best practices. Future studies should report on important aspects of educational interventions, which would allow for comparison across studies, yield the essential data needed to identify handoff education best practices, and improve patient safety.

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.

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.

Evaluation of a Paper-Based Checklist versus an Electronic Handover Tool Based on the Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR) Concept in Patients after Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease

(1) Background: we compare a new SBAR based electronic handover tool versus a paper-based checklist for handover in a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). (2) Methods: this is a randomized, observational study of 40 electronic vs. 40 paper checklist handovers after pediatric cardiac surgery, with a 48 items checklist for comparison of reporting frequencies and notification of disturbances and noise. PICU staff satisfaction was evaluated by a 12-item questionnaire. (3) Results: in 14 out of 40 cases, there were problems with data processing (incomplete or no data processing). Some item groups (e.g., hemodynamics) were consistently reported at higher frequencies than other groups. Items not specifically asked for did not get reported. Some items, automatically processed in the SBAR handover page, did not get reported. Many handovers suffered a noisy and distracting atmosphere. There was no difference in staff satisfaction between the two handover approaches. Nurses were highly unsatisfied with the general approach by which the handover was performed. (4) Conclusions: human error appears to be a main factor for unreliable data processing. Software is still too complicated, and multitasking is a stressful and error prone event. Handover is a complex task with many factors required for a successful completion.

Communication failures contributing to patient injury in anaesthesia malpractice claims☆

BACKGROUND

Communication amongst team members is critical to providing safe, effective medical care. We investigated the role of communication failures in patient injury using the Anesthesia Closed Claims Project database.

METHODS

Claims associated with surgical/procedural and obstetric anaesthesia and postoperative pain management for adverse events from 2004 or later were included. Communication was defined as transfer of information between two or more parties. Failure was defined as communication that was incomplete, inaccurate, absent, or not timely. We classified root causes of failures as content, audience, purpose, or occasion with inter-rater reliability assessed by kappa. Claims with communication failures contributing to injury (injury-related communication failures; n=389) were compared with claims without any communication failures (n=521) using Fisher's exact test, t-test, or Mann-Whitney U-tests.

RESULTS

At least one communication failure contributing to patient injury occurred in 43% (n=389) out of 910 claims (κ=0.885). Patients in claims with injury-related communication failures were similar to patients in claims without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings (34% vs 26%; P=0.004). Fifty-two claims had multiple communication failures for a total of 446 injury-related failures, and 47% of failures occurred during surgery, 28% preoperatively, and 23% postoperatively. Content failures (insufficient, inaccurate, or no information transmitted) accounted for 60% of the 446 communication failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication failure contributed to patient injury in 43% of anaesthesia malpractice claims. Patient/case characteristics in claims with communication failures were similar to those without failures, except that failures were more common in outpatient settings.