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

Guidelines in Practice: Team Communication

The perioperative setting is a complex environment requiring interdisciplinary team collaboration to avoid adverse events. To protect the safety of patients and perioperative team members, communication among personnel should be clear and effective. The recently updated AORN "Guideline for team communication" provides perioperative nurses with recommendations on the topic. To promote effective communication in perioperative areas, all personnel should value and commit to a culture of safety. This article discusses recommendations for supporting a culture of safety, developing and implementing an effective hand-off process and surgical safety checklist, and developing education strategies for team communication. It also includes a scenario describing the implementation of a standardized, electronic surgical safety checklist in the OR. Perioperative nurses should review the guideline in its entirety and apply the recommendations for team communication in their working environments.

Application of broken windows theory to identify flow disruptions in neurosurgery procedure

Addressing flow disruptions (FDs) in neurosurgery requires a multifaceted approach. Strategies like improved communication protocols, minimizing interruptions, improving coordination among team, optimizing operating room layout, and promoting user-centered design can help mitigate the challenges and enhance the overall flow and safety of neurosurgical procedures. Thirty neurosurgery cases were observed at two tertiary care facilities. The data collected were from wheels into the operating room to wheels out from the operating room. Data points were categorized using a human factors taxonomy known as RIPCHORD-TWA (Realizing Improved Patient Care Through Human-Centered Operating Room Design for Threat Window Analysis). Of the 541 total disruptions observed, coordination issues were the most prevalent (26.25%), followed by layout issues (26.06%), issues related to interruption (22.55%), communication (22.37%), equipment issues (2.40%) and usability issues (0.37%) comprised the remainder of the observations. This translated into one disruption every 2.7 min. Instead of focusing exclusively on errors and adverse events, we propose conceptualizing the accumulation of disruptions as "threat windows" to analyze potential threats to the integrity of the care system. This perspective allows for the improved identification of system weaknesses or threats, affording us the ability to address these inefficiencies and intervene before errors and adverse events may occur.

Teamwork and mental workload in postsurgical pediatric patient handovers: Prospective effect evaluation of an improvement intervention for OR-PICU patient transitions

Postsurgical handover of pediatric patients from operating rooms (OR) to pediatric intensive care units (PICU) is a critical step. This transition is susceptible to errors and inefficiencies particularly if poor multidisciplinary teamwork occurs. Despite wide adoption of standardized handover interventions, comprehensive investigations into joint effects for patient care and provider outcomes are scarce. We aimed to improve OR-PICU handovers quality and sought to evaluate the intervention with particular attention to patient care effects and provider outcomes. A prospective, before-after-study design with an interrupted-series and a multi-source, mixed-methods evaluation approach was established. Drawing upon a participative plan-do-study-act approach, a standardized, checklist-based handover process was designed and implemented. For effect assessments, we observed OR-PICU handovers on site (pre implementation: n = 31, post: n = 30), respectively, with standardized expert observation and provider self-report tools (n = 111, n = 110). Setting was a tertiary Pediatric University Hospital. Supplementary qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted, and a general inductive content analysis approach was used to identify key facilitators and barriers on implementation. Improvement efforts focused on stepwise implementation of (1) standardized handover process and (2) a checklist for multi-professional OR-PICU handover communication. We observed significant increases in team and patient setup (pre: 79.3%, post: 98.6%, p < .01), enhanced team engagement (pre: 50%, post: 81.7%, p < .01), and comprehensive information transfer by the anesthesia sub-team (pre: 78.6%, post: 87.3%, p < .01). Expert-rated teamwork outcomes were consistently higher, yet self-reported teamwork did not change over time. Provider perceived stress and disruptions did not change, mental workload tended to decrease over time (pre: M = 3.2, post: 2.9, p = .08). Comprehensiveness of post-operative patient information reported by PICU physician increased significantly: pre: 65.9%, post: 76.2%, p < .05. After implementation, providers acknowledged the importance of standardized handover practices and associated benefits for facilitation of information transfer and comprehensiveness. Among reported barriers were obstacles during implementation as well as insufficient consideration of professionals' individual workflow after surgery.

CONCLUSION

 A multidisciplinary intervention for postsurgical pediatric patient handovers was associated with improved expert-rated teamwork and fewer omissions of key patient information over time. Inconsistent results were obtained for provider-rated mental workload and teamwork outcomes. The findings contribute to a better understanding concerning the interplay of teamwork and provider cognitions in the course of establishing safe patient transitions in pediatric care.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Transfer of critically ill children conveys significant challenges for interprofessional communication and teamwork. Prospective research into interventions for safe and efficient handover practices of OR PICU patient transitions is necessary. • Checklists are assumed to facilitate cognitive load among providers in acute clinical environments.

WHAT IS NEW

• A standardized, checklist-based handover intervention was associated with improvements in team set-up and information transfer. Provider outcomes such as mental workload and stress did not change over time. • The combination of teamwork and provider assessments allows a more nuanced understanding of implementation barriers and sustainable effects in course of OR-PICU handover interventions.

Handoffs and the challenges to implementing teamwork training in the perioperative environment

Perioperative handoffs are high-risk events for miscommunications and poor care coordination, which cause patient harm. Extensive research and several interventions have sought to overcome the challenges to perioperative handoff quality and safety, but few efforts have focused on teamwork training. Evidence shows that team training decreases surgical morbidity and mortality, and there remains a significant opportunity to implement teamwork training in the perioperative environment. Current perioperative handoff interventions face significant difficulty with adherence which raises concerns about the sustainability of their impact. In this perspective article, we explain why teamwork is critical to safe and reliable perioperative handoffs and discuss implementation challenges to the five core components of teamwork training programs in the perioperative environment. We outline evidence-based best practices imperative for training success and acknowledge the obstacles to implementing those best practices. Explicitly identifying and discussing these obstacles is critical to designing and implementing teamwork training programs fit for the perioperative environment. Teamwork training will equip providers with the foundational teamwork competencies needed to effectively participate in handoffs and utilize handoff interventions. This will improve team effectiveness, adherence to current perioperative handoff interventions, and ultimately, patient safety.

Improving Handoffs in the Perioperative Environment: A Conceptual Framework of Key Theories, System Factors, Methods, and Core Interventions to Ensure Success

BACKGROUND

Patient handoffs involve the transition of information and responsibility for care from one health care provider to another. They occur frequently during a patient's perioperative care continuum, potentially introducing communication errors that could result in harmful, even fatal consequences. The perioperative environment poses distinct challenges to team communication and patient safety, which in turn leaves the surgical patient uniquely vulnerable to adverse events.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The best way to achieve safe, coordinated handoffs throughout the perioperative continuum has yet to be established. However, a variety of theoretical principles, methods, and interventions have been used successfully in operative and nonoperative contexts among multiple disciplines. Informed by a literature review, the authors describe a conceptual framework for the development, implementation, and sustainment of a multimodal perioperative handoff improvement bundle. The conceptual framework presented here begins with overarching objectives for patient-centered handoff improvement efforts. The article outlines theoretical principles that could be used to guide and inform future multimodal interventions, as well as health care system factors to consider. Further, the authors propose employing data-driven quality improvement and research methodologies to conduct, measure, achieve, and sustain long-term success. Finally, this report describes essential evidence-based interventional components to employ.

IMPLICATIONS

Future efforts to improve handoff safety in the perioperative environment will require a comprehensive evidence-based approach. The authors believe the conceptual framework presented here outlines essential components for success. It integrates proven theoretical frameworks, consideration of system factors, data-driven iterative methods, and synergistic patient-centered interventions.

Leveraging the Science of Teamwork to Sustain Handoff Improvements in Cardiovascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

Improving the reliability of handoffs and care transitions is an important goal for many health care organizations. Increasing evidence shows that human-centered design and improved teamwork can lead to sustainable care transition improvements and better patient outcomes. This study was conducted within a cardiovascular service line at an academic medical center that performs more than 600 surgical procedures annually. A handoff process previously implemented at the center was poorly adopted. This work aimed to improve cardiovascular handoffs by applying human factors and the science of teamwork.

METHODS

The study's quality improvement method used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and participatory design and ergonomics to develop, implement, and assess a new handoff process and bundle. Trained observers analyzed video-recorded and live handoffs to assess teamwork, leadership, communication, coordination, cooperation, and sustainability of unit-defined handoff best practices. The intervention included a teamwork-focused redesign process and handoff bundle with supporting cognitive aids and assessment metrics.

RESULTS

The study assessed 153 handoffs in multiple phases over 3 years (2016-2019). Quantitative and qualitative assessments of clinician (teamwork) and implementation outcomes were performed. Compared with the baseline, the observed handoffs demonstrated improved team leadership (p < 0.0001), communication (p < 0.0001), coordination (p = 0.0018), and cooperation (p = 0.007) following the deployment of the handoff bundle. Sustained improvements in fidelity to unit-defined handoff best practices continued 2.3 years post-deployment of the handoff bundle.

CONCLUSION

Participatory design and ergonomics, combined with implementation and safety science principles, can provide an evidence-based approach for sustaining complex sociotechnical change and making handoffs more reliable.

So Many Ways to Be Wrong: Completeness and Accuracy in a Prospective Study of OR-to-ICU Handoff Standardization

BACKGROUND

Studies focused on improving handoffs often measure the quality of information exchange using information completeness without reporting on accuracy. The present investigation aimed to characterize changes in the accuracy of transmitted patient information after standardization of operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs.

METHODS

Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) was a mixed methods study conducted in two US ICUs. From 2014 to 2016, trained observers captured the nature and content of information transmitted during OR-to-ICU handoffs, comparing this to the electronic medical record. Inconsistencies were compared before and after handoff standardization. Semistructured interviews initially conducted for implementation were reanalyzed to contextualize quantitative findings.

RESULTS

A total of 160 OR-to-ICU handoffs were observed-63 before and 97 after standardization. Across seven categories of information, including allergies, past surgical history, and IV fluids, two types of inaccuracy were observed: incomplete information (for example, providing only a partial list of allergies) and incorrect information. Before standardization, an average of 3.5 information elements per handoff were incomplete, and 0.11 were incorrect. After standardization, the number of incomplete information elements per handoff decreased to 2.4 (-1.1, p < 0.001), and the number of incorrect items was similar, at 0.16 (p = 0.54). Interviews revealed that the familiarity of a transporting OR provider (for example, surgeon, anesthetist) with the patient's case was considered an important factor affecting information exchange.

CONCLUSION

Handoff accuracy improved after standardizing OR-to-ICU handoffs in a two-ICU study. The improvement in accuracy was due to improved completeness rather than a change in the transmission of inaccurate information.

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.