Operating room to intensive care unit handoffs and the risks of patient harm

Eliminating Hands-Off Handoffs: Improvement in Perioperative Handoff Communication With a Multidisciplinary Tool Initiative

INTRODUCTION

Handoffs between the operating room (OR) and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) require a high volume and quality of information to be transferred. This study aimed to improve perioperative communication with a handoff tool.

METHODS

Perioperative staff at a quaternary care center was surveyed regarding perception of handoff quality, and OR to PACU handoffs were observed for structured criteria. A 25-item tool was implemented, and handoffs were similarly observed. Staff was then again surveyed. A multidisciplinary team led this initiative as a collaboration.

RESULTS

After implementation, nursing reported improved perception of time spent (2.63-3.68, p = .02) and amount of information discussed (2.85-3.73, p = .05). Anesthesia also reported improved personal communication (3.69-4.43, p = .004), effectiveness of handoffs (3.43-3.82, p = .02), and amount of information discussed (4.26-4.76, p = .05). After implementation, observed patient information discussed during handoffs increased for both surgical and anesthesia team members. The frequency of complete and near-complete handoffs increased (40%-74%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

A structured handoff tool increased the amount of essential information reported during handoffs between the OR and PACU and increased team members' perception of handoffs.

Safety and efficacy of delaying lung transplant surgery to a morning start

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of delaying lung transplantation until morning for donors with cross-clamp times occurring after 1:30 am.

Methods

All consented adult lung transplant recipients between March 2018 and May 2022 with donor cross-clamp times between 1:30 am and 5 am were enrolled prospectively in this study. Skin incision for enrolled recipients was delayed until 6:30 am (Night group). The control group was identified using a 1:2 logistic propensity score method and included recipients of donors with cross-clamp times occurring at any other time of day (Day group). Short- and medium-term outcomes were examined between groups. The primary endpoint was early mortality (30-day and in-hospital).

Results

Thirty-four patients were enrolled in the Night group, along with 68 well-matched patients in the Day group. As expected, donors in the Night group had longer cold ischemia times compared to the Day group (344 minutes vs 285 minutes; P < .01). Thirty-day mortality (3% vs 3%; P = .99), grade 3 primary graft dysfunction at 72 hours (8% vs 4%; P = .40), postoperative complications (26% vs 38%; P = .28), and hospital length of stay (15 days vs 14 days; P = .91) were similar in the 2 groups. No significant differences were noted between groups in 3-year survival (70% vs 77%; P = .30) or freedom from chronic lung allograft dysfunction (91% vs 95%; P = .75) at 3 years post-transplantation. The median follow-up was 752.5 days (interquartile range, 487-1048 days).

Conclusions

Lung transplant recipients with donor cross-clamp times scheduled after 1:30 am may safely have their operations delayed until 6:30 am with acceptable outcomes. Adoption of such a policy in clinically appropriate settings may lead to an alternative workflow and improved team well-being.

Transition of Care for Older Adults Undergoing General Surgery

The demand for surgical intervention and hospitalization is expected to increase with the growth of the older adult population. Despite advances in technology and minimally invasive surgical procedures, the needs of the older adult in the perioperative period are unique. Transitions of care from the decision to support surgery through surgical intervention, subsequent hospitalization, and postacute discharge must be supported to achieve optimal patient outcomes. The clinical nurse specialist is well suited to address care delivery and assure implementation of best practices across the continuum.

An evidence synthesis on perioperative Handoffs: A call for balanced sociotechnical solutions

SIGNIFICANCE

Perioperative handoffs interconnect the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases underlying surgical care to maintain care continuity -yet are prone to coordination and communication failures.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize evidence on factors affecting the safety and quality of perioperative handoff conduct and process.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL was conducted to include observational, descriptive studies of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative handoffs published in English language, peer-reviewed journals. Data analysis was informed by the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework describing the relationship between the work-system, work processes, and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Scoring System.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies were included. Eighteen studies focused on postoperative handoffs, with one on preoperative, three on intraoperative and only one that looked at preoperative/postoperative handoffs combined. The SEIPS framework elucidated the complex inter-related factors (enablers and barriers) related to perioperative handoff safety. While some studies found that the use of standardized handoff tools and protocols and interdisciplinary teamwork were frequently-reported enablers, other studies identified the lack of structured handoff tools and protocols, poor teamwork and communication, and improper use of documentation tools were top-cited barriers affecting handoff quality. Suggestions to ensure handoff safety and quality included implementing structured handoff checklists and protocols and building interprofessional teamwork competencies for effective communication.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our review highlights an urgency to develop more holistic sociotechnical solutions that can create and sustain a balance between technical innovations in tools and technologies and the non-technical interventions/training needed to improve interpersonal relations and teamwork competencies - taken together, can improve the quality and safety of perioperative handoff practice.

Defining obstacles to emergency transfer of trauma patients: An evaluation of retriage processes from nontrauma and lower-level Illinois trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Retriage is the emergency transfer of severely injured patients from nontrauma and lower-level trauma centers to higher-level trauma centers. We identified the barriers to retriage at sending centers in a single health system.

METHODS

We conducted a failure modes effects and criticality analysis at 4 nontrauma centers and 5 lower-level trauma centers in a single health system. Clinicians from each center described the steps in the trauma assessment and retriage process to create a process map. We used standardized scoring to characterize each failure based on frequency, impact on retriage, and prevention safeguards. We ranked each failure using the scores to calculate a risk priority number.

RESULTS

We identified 26 steps and 93 failures. The highest-risk failure was refusal by higher-level trauma centers (receiving hospitals) to accept a patient. The most critical failures in the retriage process based on total risk, frequency, and safeguard scores were (1) refusal from a receiving higher-level trauma center to accept a patient (risk priority number = 191), (2) delay in a sending center's consultant examination of a patient in the emergency department (risk priority number = 177), and (3) delay in receiving hospital's consultant calling back (risk priority number = 177).

CONCLUSION

We identified (1) addressing obstacles to determining clinical indications for retriage and (2) identifying receiving level I trauma centers who would accept the patient as opportunities to increase timely retriage. Establishing clear clinical indications for retriage that sending and receiving hospitals agree on represents an opportunity for intervention that could improve the retriage of injured patients.

Care transition of trauma patients: Processes with articulation work before and after handoff

While care transitions influence quality of care, less work studies transitions between hospital units. We studied care transitions from the operating room (OR) to pediatric and adult intensive critical care units (ICU) using Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS)-based process modeling. We interviewed twenty-nine physicians (surgery, anesthesia, pediatric critical care) and nurses (OR, ICU) and administered the AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture items about handoffs, care transitions and teamwork. Care transitions are complex, spatio-temporal processes and involve work during the transition (i.e., handoff and transport) and preparation and follow up activities (i.e., articulation work). Physicians defined the transition as starting earlier and ending later than nurses. Clinicians in the OR to adult ICU transition without a team handoff reported significantly less information loss and better cooperation, despite positive interview data. A team handoff and supporting articulation work should increase awareness, improving quality and safety of care transitions.

Two Cases of Respiratory Insufficiency Secondary to Pre-procedural Nerve Blocks for Upper Extremity Injuries

Interscalene nerve blocks are common procedures performed before upper extremity surgeries in order to provide post-op pain relief and improve recovery time. Here we present two cases of patients who underwent a unilateral supraclavicular and bilateral interscalene nerve block, respectively. The first patient had no risk factors but the second presented with a body mass index of 45.5 and a history of symptoms consistent with obstructive sleep apnea but never diagnosed. Both patients experienced some form of respiratory distress diagnosed via changes in chest x-ray and clinical presentation. The mechanism of injury that occurs in these procedures is typically from inadvertent damage to the phrenic nerve. Mild adverse effects in interscalene nerve block are relatively common. However, there is minimal data in regards to performing bilateral interscalene nerve blocks. The purpose of this study is to highlight that severe complication in both high and low-risk patients can occur but may be reduced with a safer approach and more effective communication among multidisciplinary team members.

Risk Assessment of the Door-In-Door-Out Process at Primary Stroke Centers for Patients With Acute Stroke Requiring Transfer to Comprehensive Stroke Centers

Background Patients with acute stroke at non- or primary stroke centers (PSCs) are transferred to comprehensive stroke centers for advanced treatments that reduce disability but experience significant delays in treatment and increased adjusted mortality. This study reports the results of a proactive, systematic, risk assessment of the door-in-door-out process and its application to solution design. Methods and Results A learning collaborative (clinicians, patients, and caregivers) at 2 PSCs and 3 comprehensive stroke centers in Chicago, Illinois participated in a failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis to identify steps in the process; failures of each step, underlying causes; and to characterize each failure's frequency, impact, and safeguards using standardized scores to calculate risk priority and criticality numbers for ranking. Targets for solution design were selected among the highest-ranked failures. The failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis process map and risk table were completed during in-person and virtual sessions. Failure to detect severe stroke/large-vessel occlusion on arrival at the PSC is the highest-ranked failure and can lead to a 45-minute door-in-door-out delay caused by failure to obtain a head computed tomography and computed tomography angiogram together. Lower risk failures include communication problems and delays within the PSC team and across the PSC comprehensive stroke center and paramedic teams. Seven solution prototypes were iteratively designed and address 4 of the 10 highest-ranked failures. Conclusions The failure modes, effects, and criticality analysis identified and characterized previously unrecognized failures of the door-in-door-out process. Use of a risk-informed approach for solution design is novel for stroke and should mitigate or eliminate the failures.

An observational study of postoperative handoff standardization failures

BACKGROUND

Patient handoffs from an operating room (OR) to an intensive care unit (ICU) require precise coordination among surgical, anesthesia, and critical care teams. Although several standardized handoff strategies have been developed, their sustainability remains is poor. Little is known regarding factors that impede handoff standardization.

PURPOSE

Our objectives are three-fold: (1) highlight compliance failures with standardized handoffs; (2) identify factors contributing to compliance failures; and (3) develop guidelines for sustainable handoff interventions and processes.

METHODS

We used ethnographic data collection methods-general observations, handoff shadowing, and semi-structured clinician interviews-with 84 participants from OR, ICU, and telemedicine teams at a large academic medical center. We conducted thematic analysis supported by inductive and deductive coding using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) framework.

RESULTS

Post-operative handoffs can be characterized into four phases: pre-transfer preparation, transfer and setup, report preparation and delivery, and post-transfer care. We identified compliance failures with standardized handoff protocols and associated risk factors within the OR-ICU work system including limited teamwork, absence of handoff-specific tools, and poor clinician buy-in. To improve handoffs, clinicians provided suggestions for developing collaborative Electronic Health Record (EHR)-integrated handoff tools and re-engineering the handoff process.

CONCLUSIONS

Compliance failures are prevalent in all handoff phases, leading to poor adherence with standardization. We propose theoretically grounded guidelines for designing "flexibly standardized" bundled handoff interventions for ensuring care continuity in OR to ICU transitions of care.

Ascertaining Design Requirements for Postoperative Care Transition Interventions

BACKGROUND

Handoffs or care transitions from the operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) are fragmented and vulnerable to communication errors. Although protocols and checklists for standardization help reduce errors, such interventions suffer from limited sustainability. An unexplored aspect is the potential role of developing personalized postoperative transition interventions using artificial intelligence (AI)-generated risks.

OBJECTIVES

This study was aimed to (1) identify factors affecting sustainability of handoff standardization, (2) utilize a human-centered approach to develop design ideas and prototyping requirements for a sustainable handoff intervention, and (3) explore the potential role for AI risk assessment during handoffs.

METHODS

We conducted four design workshops with 24 participants representing OR and ICU teams at a large medical academic center. Data collection phases were (1) open-ended questions, (2) closed card sorting of handoff information elements, and (3) scenario-based design ideation and prototyping for a handoff intervention. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Card sorts were further tallied to characterize handoff information elements as core, flexible, or unnecessary.

RESULTS

Limited protocol awareness among clinicians and lack of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR)-integrated handoff intervention prevented long-term sustainability of handoff standardization. Clinicians argued for a handoff intervention comprised of core elements (included for all patients) and flexible elements (tailored by patient condition and risks). They also identified unnecessary elements that could be omitted during handoffs. Similarities and differences in handoff intervention requirements among physicians and nurses were noted; in particular, clinicians expressed divergent views on the role of AI-generated postoperative risks.

CONCLUSION

Current postoperative handoff interventions focus largely on standardization of information transfer and handoff processes. Our design approach allowed us to visualize accurate models of user expectations for effective interdisciplinary communication. Insights from this study point toward EHR-integrated, "flexibly standardized" care transition interventions that can automatically generate a patient-centered summary and risk-based report.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions for operating room to intensive care unit handoffs

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain the impact of operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoff interventions on process-based and clinical outcomes.

METHOD

We included all English language, prospective evaluation studies of OR to ICU handoff interventions published as original research articles in peer-reviewed journals. The search was conducted on 11 November 2019 on MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, with no prespecified criteria for the type of comparison or outcome. A meta-analysis of similar outcomes was conducted using a random effects model. Quality was assessed using a modified Downs and Black (D&B) checklist.

RESULTS

32 studies were included for review. 31 studies were conducted at a single site and 28 studies used an observational study design with a control. Most studies (n=28) evaluated bundled interventions which comprised information transfer/communication checklists and protocols. Meta-analysis showed that the handoff intervention group had statistically significant improvements in time to analgesia dosing (mean difference (MD)=-42.51 min, 95% CI -60.39 to -24.64), fewer information omissions (MD=-2.22, 95% CI -3.68 to -0.77), fewer technical errors (MD=-2.38, 95% CI -4.10 to -0.66) and greater information sharing scores (MD=30.03%, 95% CI 19.67% to 40.40%). Only 15 of the 32 studies scored above 9 points on the modified D&B checklist, indicating a lack of high-quality studies.

DISCUSSION

Bundled interventions were commonly used to support OR to ICU handoff standardisation. Although the meta-analysis showed significant improvements for a number of clinical and process outcomes, the statistical and clinical heterogeneity must be accounted for when interpreting these findings. Implications for OR to ICU handoff practice and future research are discussed.

Eastern association for the surgery of trauma - quality, patient safety, and outcomes committee - transitions of care: healthcare handoffs in trauma

BACKGROUND

Handoffs are defined as the transfer of patient information, professional responsibility, and accountability between caregivers. This work aims to clarify the current state of transitions of care related to the management of trauma patients.

METHODS

A PubMed database and web search were performed for articles published between 2000 and 2020 related to handoffs and transitions of care. The key search terms used were: handoff(s), handoff(s) AND healthcare, and handoff(s) AND trauma. A total of 55 studies were included in qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

This systematic review explores the current state of healthcare handoffs for trauma patients. Factors found to impact successful handoffs included process standardization, team member accountability, effective communication, and the incorporation of culture. This review was limited by the small number of prospective randomized studies available on the topic.

CONCLUSION

Handoffs in trauma care have been studied and should be utilized in the context of published experience and practice. Standardization when applied with accountability has proven benefit to reduce communication errors during these transfers of care.

Intensive Care Unit Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review

Background:

It is of paramount importance to reduce the probability of clinical risks to improve the quality of health care services, make the relationship between service providers and patients more effective, enhance patient satisfaction, and decrease the rate of complaints regarding medical errors in hospitals. This study aimed at detecting potential and unacceptable risks occurring in the hospital ICUs.

Methods:

In this systematic review, all studies examining the risk assessment of ICUs in hospitals using Failure Mode and Effect Analysis method were reviewed. Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus, SID, Magiran and Web of Science databases were searched to find relevant articles published from 1980 to 2019.

Results:

The most frequent failures detected in the reviewed articles consisted of high risk of infection inwards for medical and nursing operations, high infection rates inwards for medical devices’ operation within the unit, and early discharge. Moreover, the processes through which potential high-risk Failures were examined in these studies were injection or prescription process, suction process, the process of inserting or removing endotracheal tubes, the process of transferring patients from the operation room to the unit or vice versa, pressure ulcers, and processes related to the medical devices’ operation.

Conclusion:

There are many possible reasons for failure occurring throughout these processes, and the failure modes occurring in these processes are more probable to cause serious damages to patients, have high repeatability with low probability of failure detection as the failures cannot be discovered by the personnel.

Failure mode and effects analysis for proactive healthcare risk evaluation: A systematic literature review

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is a valuable reliability management tool that can preemptively identify the potential failures of a system and assess their causes and effects, thereby preventing them from occurring. The use of FMEA in the healthcare setting has become increasingly popular over the last decade, being applied to a multitude of different areas. The objective of this study is to review comprehensively the literature regarding the application of FMEA for healthcare risk analysis.

METHODS

An extensive search was carried out in the scholarly databases of Scopus and PubMed, and we only chose the academic articles which used the FMEA technique to solve healthcare risk analysis problems. Furthermore, a bibliometric analysis was performed based on the number of citations, publication year, appeared journals, authors, and country of origin.

RESULTS

A total of 158 journal papers published over the period of 1998 to 2018 were extracted and reviewed. These publications were classified into four categories (ie, healthcare process, hospital management, hospital informatization, and medical equipment and production) according to the healthcare issues to be solved, and analyzed regarding the application fields and the utilized FMEA methods.

CONCLUSION

FMEA has high practicality for healthcare quality improvement and error reduction and has been prevalently employed to improve healthcare processes in hospitals. This research supports academics and practitioners in effectively adopting the FMEA tool to proactively reduce healthcare risks and increase patient safety, and provides an insight into its state-of-the-art.

Work system barriers and facilitators in inpatient care transitions of pediatric trauma patients

Hospital-based care of pediatric trauma patients includes transitions between units that are critical for quality of care and patient safety. Using a macroergonomics approach, we identify work system barriers and facilitators in care transitions. We interviewed eighteen healthcare professionals involved in transitions from emergency department (ED) to operating room (OR), OR to pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and ED to PICU. We applied the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) process modeling method and identified nine dimensions of barriers and facilitators - anticipation, ED decision making, interacting with family, physical environment, role ambiguity, staffing/resources, team cognition, technology and characteristic of trauma care. For example, handoffs involving all healthcare professionals in the OR to PICU transition created a shared understanding of the patient, but sometimes included distractions. Understanding barriers and facilitators can guide future improvements, e.g., designing a team display to support team cognition of healthcare professionals in the care transitions.

Interprofessional Care and Teamwork in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

We describe the importance of interprofessional care in modern critical care medicine. This review highlights the essential roles played by specific members of the interprofessional care team, including patients and family members, and discusses quality improvement initiatives that require interprofessional collaboration for success.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified through MEDLINE search using a variety of search phrases related to interprofessional care, critical care provider types, and quality improvement initiatives. Additional articles were identified through a review of the reference lists of identified articles.

STUDY SELECTION

Original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews were considered.

DATA EXTRACTION

Manuscripts were selected for inclusion based on expert opinion of well-designed or key studies and review articles.

DATA SYNTHESIS

"Interprofessional care" refers to care provided by a team of healthcare professionals with overlapping expertise and an appreciation for the unique contribution of other team members as partners in achieving a common goal. A robust body of data supports improvement in patient-level outcomes when care is provided by an interprofessional team. Critical care nurses, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, respiratory care practitioners, rehabilitation specialists, dieticians, social workers, case managers, spiritual care providers, intensivists, and nonintensivist physicians each provide unique expertise and perspectives to patient care, and therefore play an important role in a team that must address the diverse needs of patients and families in the ICU. Engaging patients and families as partners in their healthcare is also critical. Many important ICU quality improvement initiatives require an interprofessional approach, including Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment bundle implementation, interprofessional rounding practices, unit-based quality improvement initiatives, Patient and Family Advisory Councils, end-of-life care, coordinated sedation awakening and spontaneous breathing trials, intrahospital transport, and transitions of care.

CONCLUSIONS

A robust body of evidence supports an interprofessional approach as a key component in the provision of high-quality critical care to patients of increasing complexity and with increasingly diverse needs.

Improving transitions of care between the operating room and intensive care unit

Transitions of care between individual providers or teams of providers have a high potential for errors due to the incomplete transfer of critical information and the need for ongoing care. The transition from the operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) is a particularly dangerous time for critically ill children. Hand-offs of care between the OR and ICU teams during this key transition period require detailed communication of complete and accurate patient information at a time when the patient is perhaps most vulnerable from a physiologic standpoint. Improving the safety of transitions from the OR to the ICU is an active area of investigation, though there are a few notable best practices that are commonly employed in a number of centers. These best practices include having the appropriate personnel at the bedside for the hand-off, the use of scripts and the "sterile cockpit rule", the use of checklists, double verification of post-operative orders, and maintaining an overall safety culture.

Handovers in Perioperative Care

Handovers around the time of surgery are common, yet complex and error prone. Interventions aimed at improving handovers have shown increased provider satisfaction and teamwork, improved efficiency, and improved communication and have been shown to reduce errors and improve clinical outcomes in some studies. Common recommendations in the literature include a standardized institutional process that allows flexibility among different units and settings, the completion of urgent tasks before information transfer, the presence of all members of the team for the duration of the handover, a structured conversation that uses a cognitive aid, and education in team skills and communication.

Implementation Science in Perioperative Care

There is a 17-year gap between the initial publication of scientific evidence and its uptake into widespread practice in health care. The field of implementation science (IS) emerged in the 1990s as an answer to this "evidence-to-practice gap." In this article, we present an overview of implementation science, focusing on the application of IS principles to perioperative care. We describe opportunities for additional training and discuss strategies for funding and publishing IS work. The objective is to demonstrate how IS can improve perioperative patient care, while highlighting perioperative IS studies and identifying areas in need of additional investigation.

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.

Standardized ICU to OR handoff increases communication without delaying surgery

Purpose

No studies have examined preoperative handoffs from the intensive care unit (ICU) to OR. Given the risk of patient harm, the authors developed a standardized ICU to OR handoff using a previously published handoff model. The purpose of this paper is to determine whether a standardized ICU to OR handoff process would increase the number of team handoffs and improve patient transport readiness.

Design/methodology/approach

The intervention consisted of designing a multidisciplinary, face-to-face handoff between sending ICU providers and receiving anesthesiologist and OR nurse, verbally presented in the I-PASS format. Anticipatory calls from the OR nurse to the ICU nurse were made to prepare the patient for transport. Data collected included frequency of handoff, patient transport readiness, turnover time between OR cases, and anesthesia provider satisfaction.

Findings

In total, 57 audits were completed. The frequency of handoffs increased from 25 to 86 percent (p<0.0001) and the frequency of patient readiness increased from 61 to 97 percent (p=0.001). There were no changes in timeliness of first start cases and no significant change in turnover times between cases. Anesthesia provider satisfaction scores increased significantly.

Practical implications

A standardized, team based ICU to OR handoff increased the frequency of face-to-face handoffs, patient readiness and anesthesia provider satisfaction within increasing turnover between cases.

Originality/value

Although studies have identified the transition of patients from the ICU to the OR as a period of increased harm, the development of a preoperative ICU to OR handoff had not been described. This intervention may be used in other institutions to design ICU to OR transitions of care.

Improvement in Patient Transfer Process From the Operating Room to the PICU Using a Lean and Six Sigma-Based Quality Improvement Project

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ineffective and inefficient patient transfer processes can increase the chance of medical errors. Improvements in such processes are high-priority local institutional and national patient safety goals. At our institution, nonintubated postoperative pediatric patients are first admitted to the postanesthesia care unit before transfer to the PICU. This quality improvement project was designed to improve the patient transfer process from the operating room (OR) to the PICU.

METHODS

After direct observation of the baseline process, we introduced a structured, direct OR-PICU transfer process for orthopedic spinal fusion patients. We performed value stream mapping of the process to determine error-prone and inefficient areas. We evaluated primary outcome measures of handoff error reduction and the overall efficiency of patient transfer process time. Staff satisfaction was evaluated as a counterbalance measure.

RESULTS

With the introduction of the new direct OR-PICU patient transfer process, the handoff communication error rate improved from 1.9 to 0.3 errors per patient handoff (P = .002). Inefficiency (patient wait time and non-value-creating activity) was reduced from 90 to 32 minutes. Handoff content was improved with fewer information omissions (P < .001). Staff satisfaction significantly improved among nearly all PICU providers.

CONCLUSIONS

By using quality improvement methodology to design and implement a new direct OR-PICU transfer process with a structured multidisciplinary verbal handoff, we achieved sustained improvements in patient safety and efficiency. Handoff communication was enhanced, with fewer errors and content omissions. The new process improved efficiency, with high staff satisfaction.