Six Sigma Methodology and Postoperative Information Reporting: A Multidisciplinary Quality Improvement Study With Interrupted Time-Series Regression

Handoffs and transitions of care: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

The Joint Commission reports that at least half of communication breakdowns occur during handovers or transitions of care. There is no consensus on how best to approach the transfer of care within acute care surgery (ACS). We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current data on handoffs and transitions of care in ACS patients and evaluate the impact of standardization and formalized communication processes.

METHODS

Clinically relevant questions regarding handoffs and transitions of care with clearly defined patient Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes were determined. These centered around specific transitions of care within the setting of ACS, specifically perioperative interactions, emergency medical services and trauma team interactions, and intra/interfloor and intensive care unit (ICU) interactions. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies were identified for analysis. These included 5,113 patients in the standardized handoff group and 5,293 in the current process group. Standardized handoffs reduced handover errors for perioperative interactions and preventable adverse events for intra/interfloor and ICU interactions. There were insufficient data to evaluate outcomes of clinical complications and medical errors.

CONCLUSION

We conditionally recommend a standardized handoff in the field of ACS, including perioperative interactions, emergency medical services and trauma team interactions, and intra/interfloor and ICU interactions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level III.

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.

Evaluation of Waste Related to the Admission Process of Low-Complexity Patients in Emergency Services, in Light of the Lean Healthcare Philosophy

The adequacy of work processes in healthcare services contributes to the quality of care provided to the patient. However, in emergency units, overcrowding is a constant reality, resulting in the lack of materials and long waiting lines. Taking this into consideration, this study aimed to map and analyze the value stream of patients classified as blue, green, or yellow in a Referral Emergency Unit. The evaluation research with analysis of processes was carried out in a teaching hospital on 30 patients seen at the emergency service. Value Stream Maps were drawn and the times involved in the process were calculated. Wastes and their possible causes were identified. A total of 13 maps were created and the mean process time between the activities involved in the process ranged between 7.3′ and 114.0′; the interruption time, between 0′ and 27.6′; the waiting time, between 43.2′ and 507.5′; and the lead time between 56.6′ and 638.0′ min. Some causes of waste were: high demand from patients; a shortage of personnel and offices. Following the Ishikawa Diagram, most of the waste is found regarding methods, human resources, and physical structure.