Handoffs and transitions in critical care (HATRICC): protocol for a mixed methods study of operating room to intensive care unit handoffs

Artificial intelligence and machine learning: Definition of terms and current concepts in critical care research

With increasing computing power, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) have prospered, which facilitate the analysis of large datasets, especially those found in critical care. It is important to define these terminologies, to inform a standardized approach to critical care research. This manuscript hopes to clarify these terms with examples from medical literature. Three major components that are required for a successful ML implementation: (i) reliable dataset, (ii) ML algorithm, and (iii) unbiased model evaluation, are discussed. A reliable dataset can be structured or unstructured with limited noise, outliers, and missing values. ML, a subset of AI, is typically focused on supervised or unsupervised learning tasks in which the output is based on inputs and derived from iterative pattern recognition algorithms, while AI is the overall ability of a machine to "think" or mimic human behavior; and to analyze data free from human influence. Even with successful implementation, advanced AI and ML algorithms have faced challenges in adoption into practice, mainly due to their lack of interpretability, which hinders trust, buy-in, and engagement from clinicians. Consequently, traditional algorithms, such as linear and logistic regression, that may have reduced predictive power but are highly interpretable, continue to be widely used.

Implementation of an Interdisciplinary Transfer Huddle Intervention for Prolonged Wait Times During Inter-ICU Transfer

BACKGROUND

ICU transfers from a regional to a tertiary-level hospital are initiated typically for a higher level of care. Extended transfer wait times can negatively affect survival, length of stay (LOS), and cost.

METHODS

In this prospective single-center study, the subjects were adult ICU patients admitted to regional hospitals between January and October 2022, for whom a request was made to transfer to a tertiary-level medical ICU. The authors developed and implemented an interdisciplinary transfer huddle intervention (THI) with the goal of reducing wait times by providing a consistent channel of communication between key stakeholders. The primary outcome was the number of hours elapsed between transfer request and the time of transfer to the tertiary hospital. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital mortality, discharge to home, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS. Data were abstracted from electronic health records and periods before (January to June 2022) and after (June to October 2022) the intervention were compared. Data were analyzed using logistic regression or negative binomial regression, adjusting for patient demographic and clinical characteristics. ICU fellows also completed a daily survey about barriers they perceived to the THI application.

RESULTS

During the study period, 76 patients were transferred. The THI was completed 75.0% of the time. There were no statistically significant differences in the primary and secondary outcomes before and after the intervention. The top perceived barriers to transfer were lack of physical beds (50.0%) and staffing limitations (37.5%).

CONCLUSION

The authors successfully developed and implemented a transfer huddle to ensure consistent interdisciplinary communication for patients being transferred between ICUs and identified barriers to such transfer. However, transfer times and patient outcomes were not significantly different after the change. Future studies should consider staffing challenges, hospital capacity, and the role of dedicated transfer teams in in decreasing inter-ICU transfer wait times.

The implementation of a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery service: a qualitative case study

BACKGROUND

The international scale and spread of evidence-based perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) services has not yet been fully realised. Implementation science provides a structured approach to understanding factors that act as barriers and facilitators to the implementation of POPS services. In this study, we aimed to identify factors that influence the implementation of POPS services in the UK.

METHODS

A qualitative case study at three UK health services was undertaken. The health services differed across contextual factors (population, workforce, size) and stages of POPS service implementation maturity. Semi-structured interviews with purposively sampled clinicians (perioperative medical, nursing, allied health, and pharmacy) and managers (n = 56) were conducted. Data were inductively coded, then thematically analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

Fourteen factors across all five CFIR domains were relevant to the implementation of POPS services. Key shared facilitators included stakeholders understanding the rationale of the POPS service, with support from their networks, POPS champions, and POPS clinical leads. We found substantial variation and flexibility in the way that health services responded to these shared facilitators and this was relevant to the implementation of POPS services.

CONCLUSIONS

Health services planning to implement a POPS service should use health service-specific strategies to respond flexibly to local factors that are acting as barriers or facilitators to implementation. To support implementation of a POPS service, we recommend health services prioritise understanding local networks, identifying POPS champions, and ensuring that stakeholders understand the rationale for the POPS service. Our study also provides a structure for future research to understand the factors associated with 'unsuccessful' implementation of a POPS service, which can inform ongoing efforts to implement evidence-based perioperative models of care for older people.

Patients' Perceptions of Virtual Live Music in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Implementing music in the intensive care unit has increased in popularity because the environment can be stressful and anxiety inducing for many patients. In hospital settings, therapeutic music can be beneficial for patients' well-being and recovery. Although live music typically involves a face-to-face encounter between the musician and patient, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted a change to virtual live therapeutic music, using technology to present music in real time (eg, with a tablet computer).

OBJECTIVE

To generate novel findings regarding patients' perceptions of virtual live therapeutic music, which has been little studied compared with live or recorded music..

METHODS

Fifty patients in Vanderbilt University Medical Center intensive care units listened to virtual live music played by a volunteer musician via an online video communication platform. Patients' responses to 5 survey questions were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively using data analysis software.

RESULTS

Seven major themes describing the familiarity and significance of music for patients were identified. Forty-seven patients (94%) experienced positive emotions from the music, 46 (92%) indicated that music was a significant part of their lives, 28 (56%) accessed a cherished memory, and 45 (90%) indicated that they would not change anything.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic virtual music was well received and provided tangible benefits to patients. Additional research would provide information on patients' outcomes and differences between live and virtual live music.

Surgical Emergencies in Patients with Significant Comorbid Diseases

Emergency surgery in patients with significant comorbidities benefits from a structured approach to preoperative evaluation, intra-operative intervention, and postoperative management. Providing goal concordant care is ideal using shared decision-making. When operation cannot achieve the patient's goal, non-operative therapy including Comfort Care is appropriate. When surgical therapy is offered, preoperative physiology-improving interventions are far fewer than in other phases. Reevaluation of clinical care progress helps define trajectory and inform goals of care. Palliative Care Medicine may be critical in supporting loved ones during a patient's critical illness. Outcome evaluation defines successful strategies and outline opportunities for improvement.

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.

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.

[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.

Standardizing postoperative handoffs using the evidence-based IPASS framework through a multidisciplinary initiative improves handoff communication for neurosurgical patients in the neuro-intensive care unit

Errors in communication are a major source of preventable medical errors. Neurosurgical patients frequently present to the neuro-intensive care unit (NICU) postoperatively, where handoffs occur to coordinate care within a large multidisciplinary team. A multidisciplinary working group at our institution started an initiative to improve postoperative neurosurgical handoffs using validated quality improvement methodology. Baseline handoff practices were evaluated through staff surveys and serial observations. A formalized handoff protocol was implemented using the evidence based IPASS format (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situational awareness and contingency planning, Synthesis by receiver). Cycles of objective observations and surveys were employed to track practice improvements and guide iterative process changes over one year. Surveys demonstrated improved perceptions of handoffs as organized (17.1% vs 69.7%, p < 0.001), efficient (27.0% vs. 72.7%, p < 0.001), comprehensive (17.1% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), and safe (18.0% vs. 66.7%, p < 0.001), noting improved teamwork (31.5% vs. 69.7%, p < 0.001). Direct observations demonstrated improved communication of airway concerns (47.1% observed vs. 92.3% observed, p < 0.001), hemodynamic concerns (70.6% vs. 97.1%, p = 0.001), intraoperative events (52.9% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), neurological examination (76.5% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), vital sign goals (70.6% vs. 100%, p < 0.001), and required postoperative studies (76.5% vs. 100%, p < 0.001). Receiving teams demonstrating improved rates of summarization (47.1% vs. 94.2%, p = 0.005) and asking questions (76.5% vs 98.1%, p = 0.004). The mean handoff time during long-term follow-up was 4.4 min (95% confidence interval = 3.9-5.0 min). Standardization of handoff practices yields improvements in communication practices for postoperative neurosurgical patients.

Challenges Associated With Patient Transfer From Postanesthesia Care Unit to Surgical Unit in Iran: A Mixed-Method Study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to explore the entire spectrum of challenges associated with the process of patient transfer from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) to the surgical unit.

DESIGN

The study employed a mixed-method design with concurrent triangulation approach.

METHODS

The study was conducted during July-December 2018 at three teaching hospitals affiliated to Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. A total of 23 health-care providers involved with the patient transfer process from the PACU and surgical unit were recruited. Data were collected using quantitative and qualitative approaches. The quantitative study included 25 structured observations. The qualitative study included 12 unstructured observations, individual semistructured in-depth interviews (n = 13), and focused group sessions (n = 3). Data were managed using MAXQDA.10 software and analyzed using SPSS software (version 22.0).

FINDINGS

Based on qualitative data, 4 main categories and 14 subcategories were extracted. The main categories were "Multifarious Activities of Nurses", "Insufficient Organizational Resources", "Task-oriented Approach", and "Deficient Professional Performance". Results showed that 51% of patient-specific information, 64% of anesthesia information, and 74% of surgical information was not transferred during patient handoffs.

CONCLUSIONS

Insufficient organizational resources and deficient professional performance were identified as the main challenges associated with the transfer process of postoperative patients. Our findings provide a better understanding of these challenges and encourage health policymakers and planners to resolve these issues to promote patient safety during handoffs.

Translation and Psychometric Assessment of the Postoperative Handover Assessment Tool

PURPOSE

The objective of the present study was to translate and validate the Postoperative Handover Assessment Tool (PoHAT) in the Persian language.

DESIGN

The study used a descriptive, mixed-method design.

METHODS

The present descriptive, mixed-method study was conducted in 2018 at Shahid Rajaee Hospital and Shiraz Nursing and Midwifery School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Shiraz, Iran), to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of the PoHAT. The original version of PoHAT was translated into the Persian language and then back-translated for comparison. The face validity (qualitative), content validity (qualitative and quantitative), construct validity (experimental intervention method), and reliability (inter-rater reliability, internal consistency) of the Persian version of the PoHAT were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software, version 22. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

FINDINGS

The content validity ratio of all the 34 items of the Persian version of the PoHAT ranged between 0.66 and 1. The content validity index for all items was within the acceptable range (between 0.92 and 1). The result of construct validity, using the experimental intervention method, showed a significant difference between before and after intervention (P < .05). The correlation coefficient for inter-rater reliability of all subscales (information, tasks, teamwork) and the total checklist was 0.89, 0.80, 0.94, and 0.85, respectively; the coefficient was significant for all subscales (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The validity and reliability of the 34-item Persian version of the PoHAT were confirmed. The application of the PoHAT to assess the process and quality of postoperative handover in Iran and other Persian-speaking countries is recommended.

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.

Interprofessional Training and Communication Practices Among Clinicians in the Postoperative ICU Handoff

BACKGROUND

Operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs require coordinated communication between clinicians with different professional backgrounds. However, individual studies have not simultaneously evaluated handoff training and OR-to-ICU handoff practices among interprofessional clinicians that participate in these team-based handoffs.

METHODS

The objective of this study was to characterize communication training, practices, and preferences of interprofessional clinicians who engage in OR-to-ICU handoffs. The researchers conducted a mixed methods cohort study using surveys (quantitative) and semistructured interviews (qualitative). Surveys aimed to quantitatively assess the quality of prior handoff training, preferences for clinical information in handoffs, and participation in various handoff activities. Interviews aimed to elicit more in-depth clinician perspectives on these topics through open-ended discussion. The frontline clinicians who were surveyed and interviewed included surgery and anesthesia residents, registered nurses, and advanced practice providers who worked in two ICUs at an urban academic medical center in the United States.

RESULTS

In a survey with a 71.8% response rate (130/181), 45.7% (32/70) of residents, 17.4% (4/23) of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), 83.3% (10/12) of ICU nurse practitioners (NPs), and 81.0% (17/21) of ICU RNs indicated that their clinical degree-granting education had not provided adequate preparation for OR-to-ICU handoffs. On-the-job training was deemed not adequate preparation by 35.7% (25/70) of residents, 21.7% (5/23) of CRNAs, 58.3% (7/12) of ICU NPs, and 23.8% (5/21) of ICU RNs. Through 30 semistructured interviews, clinicians from all professions expressed interest in interprofessional communication education and in understanding the perspectives and priorities of care team members in OR-to-ICU handoffs. Clinicians also highlighted the potential value of interprofessional communication training taking place early in a clinical career, during degree-granting education.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians exhibit profession-based differences in OR-to-ICU handoff training, practices, and information needs. Education focused on interprofessional communication is a potential approach to facilitate improved OR-to-ICU handoff communication.

Postoperative handover among nurses in an orthopedic surgical setting in Myanmar: a best practice implementation project

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this project was to improve the postoperative handover practice within the local context of an orthopedic surgical setting by implementing best practice.

INTRODUCTION

Clinical handover is a communicative process where the responsibility of patient care is transferred through the exchange of patient information between the care providers. Postoperative handover is an important phase of perioperative care that presents challenges to handover personnel due to transitions in care throughout the perioperative period and the inability of surgical patients to participate in their own care. This paper reports on the best practice implementation project conducted in the field of postoperative handover among nurses in a 500-bed orthopedic surgical setting in Myanmar in 2017.

METHODS

The project used the JBI Practical Application of Clinical Evidence System and the Getting Research into Practice audit tool to conduct a baseline audit and two follow-up audits. A total of 120 postoperative handovers were observed and data were collected. Education sessions and a series of discussion and engagement efforts were employed to increase the compliance with evidence-based postoperative handover practice.

RESULTS

Baseline audit showed low compliance in audit criteria 3, 5 and 6, whereas varying compliance was observed in criteria 1, 2 and 4. Improvement was seen with five criteria in follow-up audits except for criterion 1. Compliance with criterion 1 was inconclusive because staff attendance at postoperative handovers varied, depending on patients' different handover needs. Nurses attendance, however, improved through engagement efforts and education sessions.

CONCLUSION

We were able to make significant improvements in the underperforming areas related to postoperative patient handover. This project confirms that an SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) checklist has been implemented to navigate and document every postoperative handover at the main operating theater; the handover process at the intensive care unit complies with the COLD (Connect, Observe, Listen, Delegate) process; and attendance of handovers by nurses has increased. It is recommended that regular audits be conducted to sustain the change and improve where required.

Failure to Debrief after Critical Events in Anesthesia Is Associated with Failures in Communication during the Event

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC

Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation.

WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW

Failure to debrief after critical events is common among anesthesia trainees and likely anesthesia teams. Communication breakdowns are associated with a high rate of the failure to debrief.

BACKGROUND

Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. The authors' objective was to understand barriers to debriefing, characterize quantifiable patterns and qualitative themes, and learn potential solutions through a mixed-methods study of actual critical events experienced by anesthesia personnel.

METHODS

At a large academic medical center, anesthesiology residents and a small number of attending anesthesiologists were audited and/or interviewed for the occurrence and patterns of debriefing after critical events during their recent shift, including operating room crises and disruptive behavior. Patterns of the events, including event locations and event types, were quantified. A comparison was done of the proportion of cases debriefed based on whether the event contained a critical communication breakdown. Qualitative analysis, using an abductive approach, was performed on the interviews to add insight to quantitative findings.

RESULTS

During a 1-yr period, 89 critical events were identified. The overall debriefing rate was 49% (44 of 89). Nearly half of events occurred outside the operating room. Events included crisis events (e.g., cardiac arrest, difficult airway requiring an urgent surgical airway), disruptive behavior, and critical communication breakdowns. Events containing critical communication breakdowns were strongly associated with not being debriefed (64.4% [29 of 45] not debriefed in events with a communication breakdown vs. 36.4% [16 of 44] not debriefed in cases without a communication breakdown; P = 0.008). Interview responses qualitatively demonstrated that lapses in communication were associated with enduring confusion that could inhibit or shape the content of discussions between involved providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the value of proximal debriefing to reducing provider burnout and improving wellness and learning, failure to debrief after critical events can be common among anesthesia trainees and perhaps anesthesia teams. Modifiable interpersonal factors, such as communication breakdowns, were associated with the failure to debrief.

Designs and methods for implementation research: Advancing the mission of the CTSA program

INTRODUCTION

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) program in response to the challenges of translating biomedical and behavioral interventions from discovery to real-world use. To address the challenge of translating evidence-based interventions (EBIs) into practice, the field of implementation science has emerged as a distinct discipline. With the distinction between EBI effectiveness research and implementation research comes differences in study design and methodology, shifting focus from clinical outcomes to the systems that support adoption and delivery of EBIs with fidelity.

METHODS

Implementation research designs share many of the foundational elements and assumptions of efficacy/effectiveness research. Designs and methods that are currently applied in implementation research include experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, simulation modeling, and configurational comparative methods.

RESULTS

Examples of specific research designs and methods illustrate their use in implementation science. We propose that the CTSA program takes advantage of the momentum of the field's capacity building in three ways: 1) integrate state-of-the-science implementation methods and designs into its existing body of research; 2) position itself at the forefront of advancing the science of implementation science by collaborating with other NIH institutes that share the goal of advancing implementation science; and 3) provide adequate training in implementation science.

CONCLUSIONS

As implementation methodologies mature, both implementation science and the CTSA program would greatly benefit from cross-fertilizing expertise and shared infrastructures that aim to advance healthcare in the USA and around the world.

Preventing Early Bouncebacks to the Neurointensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Analysis and Quality Improvement Pilot

BACKGROUND

Early unplanned readmissions of "bouncebacks" to intensive care units are a healthcare quality metric and result in higher mortality and greater cost. Few studies have examined bouncebacks to the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU), and we sought to design and implement a quality improvement pilot to reduce that rate.

METHODS

First, we performed a retrospective chart review of 504 transfers to identify potential bounceback risk factors. Risk factors were assessed on the day of transfer by the transferring physician identifying patients as "high risk" or "low risk" for bounceback. "High-risk" patients underwent an enhanced transfer process emphasizing interdisciplinary communication and rapid assessment upon transfer during a 9-month pilot.

RESULTS

Within the retrospective cohort, 34 of 504 (4.7%) transfers required higher levels of care within 48 h. Respiratory failure and sepsis/hypotension were the most common reasons for bounceback among this group. During the intervention, 8 of 225 (3.6%) transfers bounced back, all of who were labeled "high risk." Being "high risk" was associated with a risk of bounceback (OR not calculable, p = 0.02). Aspiration risk (OR 6.9; 95% CI 1.6-30, p = 0.010) and cardiac arrhythmia (OR 7.1; 95% CI 1.6-32, p = 0.01) were independent predictors of bounceback in multivariate analysis. Bounceback rates trended downward to 2.8% in the final phase (p for trend 0.09). Eighty-five percent of providers responded that the pilot should become standard of care.

CONCLUSION

Patients at high risk for bounceback after transfer from the neuro-ICU can be identified using a simple tool. Early augmented multidisciplinary communication and care for high-risk patients may improve their management in the hospital.

A Multidisciplinary Handoff Process to Standardize the Transfer of Care Between the Intensive Care Unit and the Operating Room

OBJECTIVE

Critically ill patients are at high risk for adverse events on transfer between intensive care unit and operating room. Patient safety concerns were raised within our institution during such transfers, and absence of a standardized patient handoff process was identified as an area of concern.

METHODS

The current state of the patient transfer processes between the intensive care units (ICUs) and the operating rooms (ORs) was mapped and failure modes were identified. A multidisciplinary team was convened and a standardized handoff process and tool (checklist) was developed. Adherence to the process and care team satisfaction was assessed at the end of a 60-day pilot period.

RESULTS

The process was successfully implemented hospital-wide covering all adult and pediatric ICUs. We observed a 90% compliance rate with ICU to the OR transfers and 95% compliance rate with transfers from OR to the ICU during the 60-day pilot period. The care team expressed overall satisfaction with the process and identified potential areas of improvement.

CONCLUSION

A standardized patient handoff process between the ICU and the ORs can be successfully implemented in a large academic medical center. Universal application of this quality improvement tool can reduce patient harm, improve communication between providers, and enhance patient safety.

Emergency response teams in and outside of medicine-structurally crafted to be worlds apart

Medical emergency response teams (MERTs) are widespread throughout inpatient hospital care facilities. Besides the rise of the ubiquitous rapid response team, current MERTs span trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis in many hospitals. Given the multiplicity of teams with widely varying membership, leadership, and functionality, the structure of MERTs is appropriate to review to determine opportunities for improvement. Since nonmedical ERTs predate MERT genesis and are similar across multiple disciplines, nonmedical ERTs provide a standard against which to compare and review MERT design and function.Nonmedical ERTs are crafted to leverage team members who are fully trained and dedicated to that domain, whose skills are regularly updated, with leadership tied to unique skill sets rather than based on hierarchical rank; activity is immediately reviewed at the conclusion of each deployment and teams continue to work together between team deployments. Medical emergency response teams, in sharp contradistinction, often incorporate trainees into teams that do not train together, are not focused on the discipline required to be leveraged, are led based on arrival time or hierarchy, and are usually reviewed at a time remote from team action; teams rapidly disperse after each activity and generally do not continue to work together in between team activations. These differences between ERTs and MERTs may impede MERT success with regard to morbidity and mortality mitigation. Readily deployable approaches to bridge identified gaps include dedicated Advanced Practice Provider (APP) team leadership, reductions in trainee MERT leadership while preserving participation, discipline-dedicated rescue teams, and interteam integration training.Emergency response teams in medical and nonmedical domains share parallels yet lack congruency in structure, function, membership, roles, and performance evaluation. Medical emergency response team structural redesign may be warranted to embrace the beneficial elements of nonmedical ERTs to improve patient outcome and reduce variation in rescue practices and team functionality.

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.

Developing a Standard Handoff Process for Operating Room-to-ICU Transitions: Multidisciplinary Clinician Perspectives from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) Study

BACKGROUND

Operating room (OR)-to-ICU handoffs place patients at risk for preventable harm. Numerous studies have described standardized handoff procedures following cardiac surgery, but no existing literature describes a general OR-to-ICU handoff system.

METHODS

As part of the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) study, a postoperative handoff procedure was developed by conducting interviews and focus groups with staff routinely involved in OR-to-ICU patient transitions in two mixed surgical ICUs, which included nurses, house staff, and advanced practice providers. Transcripts were analyzed according to grounded theory. Surveys, attending physician interviews, and field notes further informed process development.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 62 individuals, and three focus groups were held with 19 participants. Clinicians endorsed the importance of the OR-to-ICU handoff but identified several barriers to consistently achieving an ideal handoff-mainly, time pressure, unclear expectations, and confusion about other clinicians' informational needs. Participants were receptive to a standardized handoff process, provided that it was not overly prescriptive. Surveys (n = 132) revealed unreliable information transfer with current OR-to-ICU handoffs. These findings and preexisting OR-to-ICU handoff literature were used to develop a novel handoff process and information template suitable for standard use in a mixed surgical ICU.

CONCLUSION

OR and ICU teams agreed on handoffs' importance but expressed important barriers to consistently practicing ideal handoffs. Future work is needed to determine whether the handoff procedures developed by incorporating bedside provider perspectives improve patient outcomes.

Handover in Intensive Care

Handover is a frequent and complex task that also implies the transfer of the responsibility of the care. The deficiencies in this process are associated with important gaps in clinical safety and also in patient and professional dissatisfaction, as well as increasing health cost. Efforts to standardize this process have increased in recent years, appearing numerous mnemonic tools. Despite this, local are heterogeneous and the level of training in this area is low. The purpose of this review is to highlight the importance of IT while providing a methodological structure that favors effective IT in ICU, reducing the risk associated with this process. Specifically, this document refers to the handover that is established during shift changes or nursing shifts, during the transfer of patients to other diagnostic and therapeutic areas, and to discharge from the ICU. Emergency situations and the potential participation of patients and relatives are also considered. Formulas for measuring quality are finally proposed and potential improvements are mentioned especially in the field of training.

Identifying What Is Known About Improving Operating Room to Intensive Care Handovers: A Scoping Review

The purpose is to provide a descriptive overview of relevant material exploring improvement of handovers from the operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU). An online search (MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Joanna Briggs), including gray literature and relevant reference lists, was completed. In all, 4574 unique citations were screened and 155 full-text reviews performed; 65 articles were included in the final analysis. The majority of articles discuss an ideal structure for handover (n = 63; 97%); 43 (66%) articles mentioned strategies for implementing such an approach. Only 21 (32%) explicitly described formal quality improvement (QI) methods. Few explored project sustainability and impact of a structured handover on patient safety outcomes (n = 15, 23%). Published literature suggests that there is a significant gap in evidence of measured patient outcomes from standardization of OR to ICU handover processes. Identifying formal QI strategies used to sustain standardized handover processes will allow accurate measurement of patient outcomes.

Applying a Time-Out and Standardized Report Form in Anesthesia Handoffs

A quality improvement project resulted in a protocol for patient handoffs from anesthesia providers to other departments that improved communication and fostered a greater sense of teamwork.

Operating Room Traffic as a Modifiable Risk Factor for Surgical Site Infection

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infections (SSI) contribute to surgical patients' morbidity and costs. Operating room traffic may be a modifiable risk factor for SSI. We investigated the impact of additional operating room personnel on the risk of superficial SSI (sSSI).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this matched case-control study, cases included patients in whom sSSI developed in clean surgical incisions after elective, daytime operations. Control subjects were matched by age, gender, and procedure. Operating room personnel were classified as (1) surgical scrubbed, (2) surgical non-scrubbed, or (3) anesthesia. We used conditional logistic regression to test the extent to which additional personnel overall and from each work group were associated with infection.

RESULTS

In total, 474 patients and 803 control subjects were identified. Each additional person among total personnel and personnel from each work group was significantly associated with greater odds of infection (all personnel, odds ratio [OR] = 1.082, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.031-1.134, p = 0.0013; surgical scrubbed OR = 1.132, 95% CI 1.029-1.245, p = 0.0105; surgical non-scrubbed OR = 1.123, 95% CI 1.008-1.251, p = 0.0357; anesthesia OR = 1.153, 95% CI 1.031-1.290, p = 0.0127). After adjusting for operative duration, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, and vascular disease, additional personnel and sSSI were no longer associated overall or for any work groups (total personnel OR = 1.033, 95% CI 0.974-1.095, p = 0.2746; surgical scrubbed OR = 1.060, 95% CI 0.952-1.179, p = 0.2893; surgical non-scrubbed OR = 1.023 95% CI 0.907-1.154, p = 0.7129; anesthesia OR = 1.051, 95% CI 0.926-1.193, p = 0.4442).

CONCLUSION

The presence of additional operating room personnel was not independently associated with increased odds of sSSI. Efforts dedicated to sSSI reduction should focus on other modifiable risk factors.

Handoffs in the Intensive Care Unit

Operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs are complex and known to be associated with adverse events and patient harm. The authors hypothesized that handoff quality diminishes during nights/weekends and that bedside handoff practices are similar between ICUs of the same health system. Bedside OR-to-ICU handoffs were directly observed in 2 surgical ICUs with different patient volumes. Handoff quality measures were compared within the ICUs on weekdays versus nights/weekends as well as between the high- and moderate-volume ICUs. In the high-volume ICU, transmitter delivery scores were significantly better during off hours, while other measures were not different. High-volume ICU scores were consistently better than those in the moderate-volume ICU. Bedside handoff practices are not worse during off hours and may be better in ICUs used to a higher patient volume. Specific handoff protocols merit evaluation and training to ensure consistent practices in different ICU models and at different times.