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

Team Cognition in Handoffs: Relating System Factors, Team Cognition Functions and Outcomes in Two Handoff Processes

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates how team cognition occurs in care transitions from operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU). We then seek to understand how the sociotechnical system and team cognition are related.

BACKGROUND

Effective handoffs are critical to ensuring patient safety and have been the subject of many improvement efforts. However, the types of team-level cognitive processing during handoffs have not been explored, nor is it clear how the sociotechnical system shapes team cognition.

METHOD

We conducted this study in an academic, Level 1 trauma center in the Midwestern United States. Twenty-eight physicians (surgery, anesthesia, pediatric critical care) and nurses (OR, ICU) participated in semi-structured interviews. We performed qualitative content analysis and epistemic network analysis to understand the relationships between system factors, team cognition in handoffs and outcomes.

RESULTS

Participants described three team cognition functions in handoffs-(1) information exchange, (2) assessment, and (3) planning and decision making; information exchange was mentioned most. Work system factors influenced team cognition. Inter-professional handoffs facilitated information exchange but included large teams with diverse backgrounds communicating, which can be inefficient. Intra-professional handoffs decreased team size and role diversity, which may simplify communication but increase information loss. Participants in inter-professional handoffs reflected on outcomes significantly more in relation to system factors and team cognition (p < 0.001), while participants in intra-professional handoffs discussed handoffs as a task.

CONCLUSION

Handoffs include team cognition, which was influenced by work system design. Opportunities for handoff improvement include a flexibly standardized process and supportive tools/technologies. We recommend incorporating perspectives of the patient and family in future work.

The use of checklists in the intensive care unit: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Despite the extensive volume of research published on checklists in the intensive care unit (ICU), no review has been published on the broader role of checklists within the intensive care unit, their implementation and validation, and the recommended clinical context for their use. Accordingly, a scoping review was necessary to map the current literature and to guide future research on intensive care checklists. This review focuses on what checklists are currently used, how they are used, process of checklist development and implementation, and outcomes associated with checklist use.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases was conducted, followed by a grey literature search. The abstracts of the identified studies were screened. Full texts of relevant articles were reviewed, and the references of included studies were subsequently screened for additional relevant articles. Details of the study characteristics, study design, checklist intervention, and outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2046 studies, of which 167 were selected for further analysis. Checklists identified in these studies were categorised into the following types: rounding checklists; delirium screening checklists; transfer and handover checklists; central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) prevention checklists; airway management checklists; and other. Of 72 significant clinical outcomes reported, 65 were positive, five were negative, and two were mixed. Of 122 significant process of care outcomes reported, 114 were positive and eight were negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Checklists are commonly used in the intensive care unit and appear in many clinical guidelines. Delirium screening checklists and rounding checklists are well implemented and validated in the literature. Clinical and process of care outcomes associated with checklist use are predominantly positive. Future research on checklists in the intensive care unit should focus on establishing clinical guidelines for checklist types and processes for ongoing modification and improvements using post-intervention data.

Patient- and Team-Level Characteristics Associated with Handoff Protocol Fidelity in a Hybrid Implementation Study: Results from a Qualitative Comparative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Standardization is an evidence-based approach to improve handoffs. The factors underpinning fidelity (that is, adherence) to standardized handoff protocols are not well specified, which hampers implementation and sustainability efforts.

METHODS

The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study (2014-2017) involved the creation and implementation of a standardized protocol for operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs in two mixed surgical ICUs. The present study used fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to characterize combinations of conditions associated with fidelity to the HATRICC protocol. Conditions were derived from postintervention handoff observations yielding quantitative and qualitative data.

RESULTS

Sixty handoffs had complete fidelity data. Four conditions from the SEIPS 2.0 model were used to explain fidelity: (1) whether the patient was newly admitted to the ICU; (2) presence of an ICU provider; (3) observer ratings of attention-paying by the handoff team; and (4) whether the handoff took place in a quiet environment. None of the conditions were singly necessary or sufficient for high fidelity. Three combinations of conditions were sufficient for fidelity: (1) presence of the ICU provider and high attention ratings; (2) a newly admitted patient, presence of the ICU provider, and quiet environment; and (3) a newly admitted patient, high attention ratings, and quiet environment. These three combinations explained 93.5% of the cases demonstrating high fidelity.

CONCLUSION

In a study of OR-to-ICU handoff standardization, multiple combinations of contextual factors were associated with handoff protocol fidelity. Handoff implementation efforts should consider multiple fidelity-promoting strategies that support these combinations of conditions.

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.

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.

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.

[Structured patient handover in high-risk areas : Evidence and recommendations for the practical implementation]

The perioperative setting is a high-risk environment which is particularly susceptible to communication deficits and errors. The situation, background, assessment, recommendation (SBAR) approach provides an intuitive guideline for team communication, which is associated with an improved quality of the handover. The German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) has updated its recommendations in March 2022 and continues to endorse the use of the SBAR template. The impact of tools used for structured communication during patient handover are often studied in the context of a larger bundle of measures. The SBAR template is one option for establishing structured communication in clinical practice. Successful implementation is supported by clearly defined standard workflows to promote consistent use. This standardization identifies common communication barriers and assists in resolving them in a high-risk environment. A common understanding of the inherent values, and a shared interest in learning, applying, and training these techniques are paramount in establishing a culture of patient safety. This can only be reached through excellent interprofessional teamwork and supportive leadership.

Integrating machine learning predictions for perioperative risk management: Towards an empirical design of a flexible-standardized risk assessment tool

BACKGROUND

Surgical patients are complex, vulnerable, and prone to postoperative complications that can potentially be mitigated with quality perioperative risk assessment and management. Several institutions have incorporated machine learning (ML) into their patient care to improve awareness and support clinician decision-making along the perioperative spectrum. Recent research suggests that ML risk prediction can support perioperative patient risk monitoring and management across several situations, including the operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs.

OBJECTIVES

Our study objectives were threefold: (1) evaluate whether ML-generated postoperative predictions are concordant with clinician-generated risk rankings for acute kidney injury, delirium, pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism, and establish their associated risk factors; (2) ascertain clinician end-user suggestions to improve adoption of ML-generated risks and their integration into the perioperative workflow; and (3) develop a user-friendly visualization format for a tool to display ML-generated risks and risk factors to support postoperative care planning, for example, within the context of OR-ICU handoffs.

METHODS

Graphical user interfaces for postoperative risk prediction models were assessed for end-user usability through cognitive walkthroughs and interviews with anesthesiologists, surgeons, certified registered nurse anesthetists, registered nurses, and critical care physicians. Thematic analysis relying on an explanation design framework was used to identify feedback and suggestions for improvement.

RESULTS

17 clinicians participated in the evaluation. ML estimates of complication risks aligned with clinicians' independent rankings, and related displays were perceived as valuable for decision-making and care planning for postoperative care. During OR-ICU handoffs, the tool could speed up report preparation and remind clinicians to address patient-specific complications, thus providing more tailored care information. Suggestions for improvement centered on electronic tool delivery; methods to build trust in ML models; modifiable risks and risk mitigation strategies; and additional patient information based on individual preferences (e.g., surgical procedure).

CONCLUSIONS

ML estimates of postoperative complication risks can provide anticipatory guidance, potentially increasing the efficiency of care planning. We have offered an ML visualization framework for designing future ML-augmented tools and anticipate the development of tools that recommend specific actions to the user based on ML model output.

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.

A Multiple Baseline Trial of an Electronic ICU Discharge Summary Tool for Improving Quality of Care

OBJECTIVE

Effective communication between clinicians is essential for seamless discharge of patients between care settings. Yet, discharge summaries are commonly not available and incomplete. We implemented and evaluated a structured electronic health record-embedded electronic discharge (eDischarge) summary tool for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward.

DESIGN

Multiple baseline trial with randomized and staggered implementation.

SETTING

Adult medical-surgical ICUs at four acute care hospitals serving a single Canadian city.

PATIENTS

Health records of patients 18 years old or older, in the ICU 24 hours or longer, and discharged from the ICU to an in-hospital patient ward between February 12, 2018, and June 30, 2019.

INTERVENTION

A structured electronic note (ICU eDischarge tool) with predefined fields (e.g., diagnosis) embedded in the hospital-wide electronic health information system.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We compared the percent of timely (available at discharge) and complete (included goals of care designation, diagnosis, list of active issues, active medications) discharge summaries pre and post implementation using mixed effects logistic regression models. After implementing the ICU eDischarge tool, there was an immediate and sustained increase in the proportion of patients discharged from ICU with timely and complete discharge summaries from 10.8% (preimplementation period) to 71.1% (postimplementation period) (adjusted odds ratio, 32.43; 95% CI, 18.22-57.73). No significant changes were observed in rapid response activation, cardiopulmonary arrest, death in hospital, ICU readmission, and hospital length of stay following ICU discharge. Preventable (60.1 vs 5.7 per 1,000 d; p = 0.023), but not nonpreventable (27.3 vs 40.2 per 1,000d; p = 0.54), adverse events decreased post implementation. Clinicians perceived the eDischarge tool to produce a higher quality discharge process.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an electronic tool was associated with more timely and complete discharge summaries for patients discharged from the ICU to a hospital ward.

Standardization of Pediatric Noncardiac Operating Room to Intensive Care Unit Handoffs Improves Communication and Patient Care

OBJECTIVES

Handoffs are critical points in transitioning care between multidisciplinary teams, yet data regarding intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs in pediatric noncardiac surgical patients are lacking. We hypothesized that standardized handoffs from the pediatric operating room (OR) to the ICU would improve physician presence, communication, and patient care parameters.

METHODS

This quality improvement initiative was performed at a tertiary children's hospital. Stakeholders (anesthesiologists, nurses, intensivists, and surgeons) developed a standardized OR to pediatric and neonatal ICU handoff process based on common goals and outcomes of interest. Baseline data were collected before intervention. Implementation was carried out in 2 phases, phase 1 with a written handoff and Phase 2 with a scripted handoff process. Data collected by trained observers included handoff attendance, distractions, and transfer of essential patient information. As a surrogate for outcomes, patient care parameter data were collected for 6 hours after transfer.

RESULTS

After phase 1, surgery and ICU physician attendance increased significantly, distractions decreased, and communication of essential patient data improved. In phase 2 (scripted handoff), attendance continued to rise, distractions remained decreased, and transfer of essential information was still improved compared with baseline. Mean handoff duration did not significantly change throughout the study. Certain patient care parameters (escalation of respiratory support, additional laboratory studies, vasopressor administration, antibiotic administration and timing) remained unchanged compared with baseline. However, the need for resuscitative fluid bolus or blood products significantly decreased after implementation phase 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Standardized handoffs for pediatric noncardiac surgical patients from the OR to the ICU can improve provider attendance and communication.

The PATH to patient safety

Communication is critical to safe patient care. In this issue of the British Journal of Anaesthesia, Jaulin and colleagues show that use of a Post-Anaesthesia Team Handover (PATH) checklist is associated with fewer hypoxaemia events in the PACU, reduced handover interruptions, and other important metrics related to improved communication. The PATH checklist provides a link within a broader chain of safety checklists and other interventions that comprise a perioperative chain of survival.

Handoffs and transitions in critical care-understanding scalability: study protocol for a multicenter stepped wedge type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial

BACKGROUND

The implementation of evidence-based practices in critical care faces specific challenges, including intense time pressure and patient acuity. These challenges result in evidence-to-practice gaps that diminish the impact of proven-effective interventions for patients requiring intensive care unit support. Research is needed to understand and address implementation determinants in critical care settings.

METHODS

The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care-Understanding Scalability (HATRICC-US) study is a Type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of standardized operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs. This mixed methods study will use a stepped wedge design with randomized roll out to test the effectiveness of a customized protocol for structuring communication between clinicians in the OR and the ICU. The study will be conducted in twelve ICUs (10 adult, 2 pediatric) based in five United States academic health systems. Contextual inquiry incorporating implementation science, systems engineering, and human factors engineering approaches will guide both protocol customization and identification of protocol implementation determinants. Implementation mapping will be used to select appropriate implementation strategies for each setting. Human-centered design will be used to create a digital toolkit for dissemination of study findings. The primary implementation outcome will be fidelity to the customized handoff protocol (unit of analysis: handoff). The primary effectiveness outcome will be a composite measure of new-onset organ failure cases (unit of analysis: ICU).

DISCUSSION

The HATRICC-US study will customize, implement, and evaluate standardized procedures for OR to ICU handoffs in a heterogenous group of United States academic medical center intensive care units. Findings from this study have the potential to improve postsurgical communication, decrease adverse clinical outcomes, and inform the implementation of other evidence-based practices in critical care settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04571749 . Date of registration: October 1, 2020.