Enhancing the Quality of the Anesthesia to Postanesthesia Care Unit Patient Transfer Through Use of an Electronic Medical Record-Based Handoff Tool

Sustainability of an Operating Room to Pediatric Postanesthesia Care Unit Handoff Tool

PURPOSE

The purpose of this quality improvement (QI) project was to reintroduce and assess the feasibility of a standardized, electronic health record (EHR) handoff tool and to evaluate the sustainability of a structured, team-based approach in a pediatric postanesthesia care unit (PACU).

DESIGN

This QI project used an observational pre-post design using two separate convenience samples of handoffs and perianesthesia providers.

METHODS

A standardized EHR handoff tool was reintroduced for operating room to pediatric PACU handoff communication. Handoffs between anesthesia providers, surgery team members, and PACU nurses were observed pre- and postreintroduction of the EHR handoff tool. Anesthesia providers and PACU RNs received training for giving and receiving handoffs and were provided directions on locating the EHR handoff tool. A bedside audit of items communicated for the six handoff phases (introductions, situation, background, assessment, recommendations, and questions), handoff duration, team member participation, and handoff tool utilization were performed for 149 handoffs pre- and 146 handoffs postimplementation. To evaluate sustainability, the audits were compared to postimplementation data from the 2014 pilot handoff project.

FINDINGS

Following reintroduction, EHR handoff tool use increased from 4% to 19%. There was a statistically significant increase in items communicated for three of the six handoff phases when using the EHR tool (P < .05). There was no statistically significant increase in handoff duration (mean = 3.66 minutes, SD = 1.57 minutes) with the EHR handoff tool. Surgical team member presence for the team-based handoff increased from 90.7% pre to 95.9% post. Provider compliance with the team-based handoff approach, which includes a PACU RN, surgical team member, and anesthesia team member present for handoff, was sustained and increased 6 years postimplementation. Feedback from anesthesia providers and PACU RNs indicated mixed reports of satisfaction with the EHR tool, perceived handoff efficiency, and consistency in both giving and receiving handoff. Adherence to five of the six structured handoff phases, except introductions, was sustained and even improved 6 years following implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based practice for handoff communication supports the use of a team approach and standardized EHR handoff tools. The reintroduction of a standardized EHR handoff tool improved the completeness of information transfer, yet did not lead to widespread adoption nor improved user satisfaction. There is an ongoing need to identify adoptable and sustainable perioperative handoff methods.

[Patient handover from anaesthesia to postanaesthesia unit: An analysis of the current situation in three Swiss hospitals]

Patient handover from anaesthesia to postanaesthesia unit: An analysis of the current situation in three Swiss hospitals Abstract: Background: Patient handovers carry a risk of inadequate or missing communication of important information that can jeopardize patient safety. To increase patient safety, protocols for processes and contents of a structured patient handover were created. Aim: To assess the current status of patient handovers from anaesthesia staff to recovery room nurses. Method: After a literature search an observation protocol for patient handovers according to the SBAR concept (von Dossow & Zwißler, 2016) was developed. Using this checklist, non-participant observations were conducted in three Swiss hospitals and evaluated with statistical analysis. Results: A total of 98 observations were made. The report receiving person felt integrated into the handover and received the necessary information. Deficiencies in patient identification and a joint control of lines after surgical interventions could be identified. The subjectively rated quality of patient handover did not differ between the three hospitals (X²(2)=,927, p=,629) and also not according to the time of day (X²(2)=3,604, p=,216). There was also no difference between the subjective quality of the handover and the delivering professional group (X²(3)=4,507, p=,212). Conclusions: The subjective quality of patient handover did not differ between the three hospitals. However, the patient handover protocols need to be adapted to ensure that patient identification and a joint assessment including control of lines and drains are performed.

Improving Communication Between ICU Nurses and Anesthesia Providers Using a Standardized Handoff Protocol

PURPOSE

This quality improvement (QI) project aimed to improve handoff communication between intensive care unit (ICU) nurses and anesthesia providers using a standardized preoperative handoff protocol for nonemergent and noncardiac procedures.

DESIGN

A quality improvement project.

METHODS

Following project approval, the project team provided staff education regarding a pre-populated handoff tool from the electronic medical record (EMR) adapted for perioperative use. In addition, the project team assessed the providers' perception and satisfaction with handoff communication before and after the intervention.

FINDINGS

Of the 128 transfers, 76% completed the handoff tool during the 1-month implementation phase. CRNAs (n = 60), Registered Nurses (RNs; n = 88), and anesthesia residents (n = 30) completed the pre-and post-implementation surveys. Pre-implementation, 40% of providers were dissatisfied with communication, and only 14% reported dissatisfaction post-implementation. Also, 40% of providers believed this handoff protocol increased the amount of accurate information shared during reports without delaying the transition of care.

CONCLUSIONS

The standardized handoff tool appears to improve information sharing during the transfer of care and improve provider satisfaction with the handoff process. Long term, it may reduce adverse patient events and improve outcomes. Use of a pre-populated handoff tool from the EMR provides a cost-effective solution to decrease erroneous reporting by removing human error associated with the recall.

Does standardisation improve post-operative anaesthesia handoffs? Meta-analyses on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes

Anaesthesia handoffs are associated with negative outcomes (e.g. inappropriate treatments, post-operative complications, and in-hospital mortality). To minimise these adverse outcomes, federal bodies (e.g. Joint Commission) have mandated handoff standardisation. Due to the proliferation of handoff interventions and research, there is a need to meta-analyze anaesthesia handoffs. Therefore, we performed meta-analyses on the provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes related to post-operative anaesthesia handoff protocols. We meta-analysed 41 articles with post-operative anaesthesia handoffs that implemented a standardised handoff protocol. Compared to no standardisation, a standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoff changed provider outcomes with an OR of 4.03 (95% CI 3.20-5.08), patient outcomes with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.32-1.69), organisational outcomes with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI 2.51-7.19), handoff outcomes with an OR of 8.52 (95% CI 7.05-10.31). Our meta-analyses demonstrate that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs altered patient, provider, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Practitioner Summary: We conducted meta-analyses to assess the effects of post-operative anaesthesia handoff standardisation on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Our findings suggest that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs changed all listed outcomes in a positive direction. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as notable limitations in this literature base.

Development of an aviation-style computerized checklist displayed on a tablet computer for improving handoff communication in the post-anesthesia care unit

Critical patient care information is often omitted or misunderstood during handoffs, which can lead to inefficiencies, delays, and sometimes patient harm. We implemented an aviation-style post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) handoff checklist displayed on a tablet computer to improve PACU handoff communication. We developed an aviation-style computerized checklist system for use in procedural rooms and adapted it for tablet computers to facilitate the performance of PACU handoffs. We then compared the proportion of PACU handoff items communicated before and after the implementation of the PACU handoff checklist on a tablet computer. A trained observer recorded the proportion of PACU handoff information items communicated, any resistance during the performance of the checklist, the type of provider participating in the handoff, and the time required to perform the handoff. We also obtained these patient outcomes: PACU length of stay, respiratory events, post-operative nausea and vomiting, and pain. A total of 209 PACU handoffs were observed before and 210 after the implementation of the tablet-based PACU handoff checklist. The average proportion of PACU handoff items communicated increased from 49.3% (95% CI 47.7-51.0%) before checklist implementation to 72.0% (95% CI 69.2-74.9%) after checklist implementation (p < 0.001). A tablet-based aviation-style handoff checklist resulted in an increase in PACU handoff items communicated, but did not have an effect on patient outcomes.