Directly Comparing Handoff Protocols for Pediatric Hospitalists

Impact of Interprofessional Communication on Safety in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

In light of the complex advances in neonatal intensive care units (NICU), it is essential that healthcare providers (HCPs) are equipped with the appropriate skills to effectively communicate between disciplines to provide safe, quality care. However, many HCPs acknowledge that they are not confident in their ability to communicate effectively with peers.

PURPOSE AND DESIGN

This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and facilitators of communication among HCPs in a NICU setting. This study took place in a 60-bed NICU that utilized multiple disciplines of HCPs. Using a qualitative, cross-sectional design, 2 surveys were administered, namely, a demographic survey with open-ended questions and the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ).

RESULTS

Findings indicated inverse relationships in age/experience and perceptions of management. Total SAQ scores ranged from 45 to 77 (N = 28, M = 62.47, SD = 9.40). The SAQ highlight that total scores above 75 correspond with positive perceptions of safety in the NICU.

CONCLUSION

The statistical evidence derived from this study contributes to the evaluation of HCP-perceived communication barriers and facilitators. The identification of perceived barriers and facilitators of communication in an ICU setting may serve as a distinct, evidence-based foundation to develop interventions that emphasize the value of communication.

Measurement of Information Transfer During Simulated Sequential Complete Shift-to-Shift Intraoperative Handoffs

Objective

To determine information transfer during simulated shift-to-shift intraoperative anesthesia handoffs and the benefits of using a handoff tool.

Patients and Methods

Anesthesiology residents and faculty participating in simulation-based education in a simulation center on April 6 and 20, 2017, and April 11 and 25, 2019. We used a fixed clinical scenario to compare information transfer in multiple sequential simulated handoff chains conducted from memory or guided by an electronic medical record generated tool. For each handoff, 25 informational elements were assessed on a discrete 0-2 scale generating a possible information retention score of 50. Time to handoff completion and number of clarifications requested by the receiver were also determined.

Results

We assessed 32 handoff chains with up to 4 handoffs per chain. When both groups were combined, the mean information retention score was 31 of 50 (P<.001) for the first clinician and declined by an average of 4 points per handoff (P<.001). The handoff tool improved information retention by almost 7 points (P=.002), but did not affect the rate of information degradation (P=.38). Handoff time remained constant for the intervention group (P=.67), but declined by 2 minutes/handoff (P<.001) in the control group, which required 7 more clarifications/handoff (P=.003). In the control group, 7 of 16 (44%) handoff chains contained one or more information retention scores below the lowest score of the entire intervention group (P=.007).

Conclusion

Clinical handoffs are accompanied by degradation of information that is only partially reduced by use of a handoff tool, which appears to prevent extremes of information degradation.

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

Anaesthesia handoffs are associated with negative outcomes (e.g. inappropriate treatments, post-operative complications, and in-hospital mortality). To minimise these adverse outcomes, federal bodies (e.g. Joint Commission) have mandated handoff standardisation. Due to the proliferation of handoff interventions and research, there is a need to meta-analyze anaesthesia handoffs. Therefore, we performed meta-analyses on the provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes related to post-operative anaesthesia handoff protocols. We meta-analysed 41 articles with post-operative anaesthesia handoffs that implemented a standardised handoff protocol. Compared to no standardisation, a standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoff changed provider outcomes with an OR of 4.03 (95% CI 3.20-5.08), patient outcomes with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.32-1.69), organisational outcomes with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI 2.51-7.19), handoff outcomes with an OR of 8.52 (95% CI 7.05-10.31). Our meta-analyses demonstrate that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs altered patient, provider, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Practitioner Summary: We conducted meta-analyses to assess the effects of post-operative anaesthesia handoff standardisation on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Our findings suggest that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs changed all listed outcomes in a positive direction. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as notable limitations in this literature base.

Preliminary Psychometrics of the Knowledge and Attitudes Toward SBAR Instrument (KA-SBAR)

BACKGROUND

When measuring new practice approaches for improving patient safety in the clinical setting, researchers need instruments with evidence of reliability and validity.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this analysis was to examine the reliability and validity of an instrument to assess knowledge and attitudes toward communication using situation-background-assessment-recommendation (SBAR; KA-SBAR).

METHODS

This psychometric analysis was conducted with data from an interprofessional simulation-based learning experience with doctor of nursing practice students (n = 19) and physical therapy students (n = 52). Internal consistency reliability and construct validity tests including factor analysis for the KA-SBAR were conducted.

RESULTS

The KA-SBAR instrument had adequate internal consistency reliability and evidence of construct validity, including identification of two factors that explained 70% of the instrument's variance. However, there may be a ceiling effect of scores, making it difficult to show change.

CONCLUSIONS

The KA-SBAR instrument may be useful in assessing clinicians' perceptions of SBAR communication in education and practice settings.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

When selecting data collection measures, nurses need to carefully consider the purpose of the measure and evidence of the instrument's reliability and validity. Educators need to consider the clinical expertise of the students in designing challenging simulations to advance learning.

Checklists: A Review of Their Origins, Benefits, and Current Uses as a Cognitive Aid in Medicine

Since its initial introduction in the 1930s, checklists have proven their worth in aviation and have been increasingly promoted in medicine as a cognitive aid that can improve patient outcomes. This article reviews the different types of checklists, how they aid user performance, the barriers to their adoption, and strategies for increasing user acceptance of checklists.

Measuring shared mental models in healthcare

Objective

To review common qualitative and quantitative methods of measuring shared mental models appropriate for use in the healthcare setting.

Background

Shared mental models are the overlap of individuals’ set of knowledge and/or assumptions that act as the basis for understanding and decision making between individuals. Within healthcare, shared mental models facilitate effective teamwork and theorized to influence clinical decision making and performance. With the current rapid growth and expansion of healthcare teams, it is critical that we understand and correctly use shared mental model measurement methods assess optimal team performance. Unfortunately, agreement on the proper measurement of shared mental models within healthcare remains diffuse.

Method

This paper presents methods appropriate to measure shared mental models within healthcare.

Results

Multiple shared mental model measurement methods are discussed with regard to their utility within this setting, ease of use, and difficulties in deploying within the healthcare operational environment. For rigorous analysis of shared mental models, it is recommended that a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses be employed.

Conclusion

There are multitude of shared mental model measurement methods that can be used in the healthcare domain; although there is no perfect solution for every situation. Researchers can utilize this article to determine the best approach for their needs.