Handover of Critical Patients in Urgent Care and Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review of Validated Assessment Tools

Clinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices in emergency departments: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To review the available information on clinical practice guidelines for person-centred and current handover practices between emergency care practitioners (ECPs) and healthcare professionals in emergency departments (EDs). Collating existing clinical practice guidelines may improve handover practices.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Clinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices between ECPs and healthcare professionals in EDs. ECPs transporting and handing patients over to healthcare professionals in EDs. Healthcare professionals including doctors and nurses working in EDs, who are involved in handovers with ECPs. Studies conducted in EDs, emergency rooms or emergency centres in any geographical area. No language or time restrictions were applied. The search included published and unpublished studies, opinion papers as well as primary sources, and evidence synthesis. All qualitative and quantitative research designs were included.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

The literature on clinical practice guidelines for person-centred handover practices was reviewed. Three electronic databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), CINAHL (EBSCO) and Scopus from inception to May 2023 with no time limits set for the inclusion of published literature in the review. Six guideline organisations were also searched.

CHARTING METHODS

A data extraction tool was developed, pilot-tested and used to extract data from the included studies.

RESULTS

19 studies met the inclusion criteria. Various mnemonics exist for handover practices. Where mnemonics are not used, participants have identified important information that should be included during handover practices. We did not find any clinical practice guidelines or information on person-centred handover practices in any of the reviewed articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently, there is no gold standard for person-centred handover practices, which has led to various practices being implemented. Currently, there is a paucity of literature on person-centred handover practices. Most articles expressed a need for standardised handover practices; however, not all aspects of handover practices can be standardised and should be kept patient and context-specific.

TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

This scoping review protocol was registered on Figshare (10.6084/m9 /m9.figshare.21731528).

Comparison of the SBAR method and modified handover model on handover quality and nurse perception in the emergency department: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

Effective information transfer during nursing shift handover is a crucial component of safe care in the emergency department (ED). Examining nursing handover models shows that they are frequently associated with errors. Disadvantages of the SBAR handover model include uncertainty of nursing staff regarding transfer of responsibility and non-confidentiality of patient information. To increase reliability of handover, written forms and templates can be used in addition to oral handover by the bedside.

AIMS

The purpose of this study is to compare the 'Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) method and modified handover model on the handover quality and nurse perception of shift handover in the ED.

METHODS

This research was designed as a semi-experimental study, with census survey method used for sampling. In order to collect data, Nurse Perception of Hanover Questionnaire (NPHQ) and Handover Quality Rating Tool (HQRT) were used after translating and confirming validity and reliability used to direct/collect data. A total of 31 nurses working in the ED received training on the modified shift handover model in a one-hour theory session and three hands-on bedside training sessions. This model was implemented by the nurses for one month. Data was analyzed with SPSS (version 26) using paired t-tests and analysis of covariance.

RESULTS

Results indicated significant difference between the modified handover model and SBAR in components of information transfer (P < 0.001), shared understanding (P < 0.001), working atmosphere (P = 0.004), handover quality (P < 0.001), and nurse perception of handover (P < 0.001). The univariate covariance test did not show demographic variables to be significantly correlated with handover perception or handover quality in SBAR and modified methods (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study can be presented to nursing managers as a guide in improving the quality of nursing care via implementing and applying the modified handover model in the nursing handover. The resistance of nurses against executing a new handover method was one of the limitations of the research, which was resolved by explanation of the plan and goals, as well as the cooperation of the hospital matron, and the ward supervisor. It is suggested to carry out a similar investigation in other hospital departments and contrast the outcomes with those obtained in the current study.

Design and construct of an assessment tool for the handover of critical patient the in urgent care and emergency setting

OBJECTIVES

To design and construct an assessment tool for the handover of critical patients in the urgent care and emergency setting.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This metric and descriptive study comprised two phases in accordance with the Clinical practice guidelines for A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist. In the first phase, the identification and selection of items related to the handover of critical patients were performed by consensus of a group of experts. The second phase consisted of two stages. In the first stage, the items were selected by applying the e-Delphi technique across two assessment rounds and in the second stage, the items were subjected a pilot test in a real critical patient handover scenario. Professionals from different disciplines and work areas (hospital and prehospital) caring for critically ill patients in the urgency and emergency setting participated in each of the phases.

RESULTS

A total of 58 critical patient care, and urgent and emergency care professionals participated in the design and construction of the assessment tool. The initial list consisted of 14 categories and 57 items, which were reduced to 28 items grouped into five categories after the intervention of the participants. The content validity index (CVI) of the instrument was 0.966.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes an assessment tool developed in Spanish-language designed to assess the handover of critical patients in the urgent care and emergency setting. This tool has a high CVI, and is the only currently available tool that consider all of the dimensions and characteristics of the handover process.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

The assessment tool developed in this study could enable critical care professionals in their clinical practice to work in a systematic way, universalizing the handover of critically ill patients in the urgent care and emergency setting through scientifically proven guidelines.

Psychometric Analysis of the Spanish-Language Version of the Instrument for the Evaluation of Handovers in Critically Ill Patients in Urgent and Emergency Care Settings

Background/Objectives: Patient handover is the process by which the responsibility for care is transferred from one health care professional to another. Given the lack of validated scales to assess the handover of critically ill patients, our aim was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Instrumento de Evaluación de la Transferencia de Enfermos Críticos (IETEC) (English: Instrument for the Evaluation of Handovers in Critically Ill Patients). Methods: Psychometric analysis of the reliability and validity (construct, convergent, and discriminant) of the IETEC. This single-center study included professionals (nurses, physicians, and emergency medical technicians) involved in the care of the critically ill in urgent care and emergency situations. Results: We evaluated 147 handovers of critically ill patients. The KR-20 score was 0.87, indicting good internal consistency. Of the 147 handovers, 117 (79.6%) were classified as unsafe and 30 (20.4%) as safe. The model fit showed an acceptable construct validity (24 items and four factors: Identification, Communication, Quality, and Family). The Communication domain had the strongest correlation with the total scale (r = 0.876) while Family had the weakest (r = 0.706). The Communication and Family domains were closely correlated (r = 0.599). The IETEC reliably differentiated between safe and unsafe handovers, with a mean (SD) score of 26.3 (1.2) versus 19.0 (4.8), respectively. No significant differences (p = 0.521) in mean IETEC scores were observed between the physicians and nurses. Conclusions: These results show that the IETEC presents adequate psychometric properties and is, therefore, a valid, reliable tool to evaluate handovers in critically ill patients in urgent care and emergency settings.

Design of a safety round model for intensive care units

INTRODUCTION

Safety Rounds (SR) are an operational tool that allow knowing adherence to good practices, help identify risks and incidents in patient safety (PS), allowing improvement actions to be implemented. The objective of this work was the design of a procedure to perform SR in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

METHODS

Preparation of a checklist for the development of SR in the ICU through the nominal group technique, with the participation of managers, middle managers and professionals from different disciplines and categories. In the first place, a group of experts agreed, based on the recommendations on good practices in PS, the definition of items, their coding, the criteria for compliance and the impact of non-compliance. Subsequently, its viability was determined through a cross-sectional study through the piloting of two SRs to adjust the items in real clinical practice conditions.

RESULTS

A specific SR model for ICUs has been obtained through a checklist. The group of experts prepared a first list made up of 39 items of 6 essential dimensions and defined the method of implementation. Mean time to complete the two SRs was 85 min, including the briefing and subsequent debriefing. After the validation pilot, the dimensions were reduced to 5, 3 items were deleted, 2 items were transferred to another dimension and 3 items related to nosocomial infections and informed consent were modified. In addition, the data sources, the compliance criteria and their relative weight were redefined. The final list was considered useful and relevant to improve practice.

CONCLUSIONS

Through a consensus methodology, a checklist has been built to be used in the RS of an ICU. This model can serve as a basis for its use in healthcare services with similar characteristics.

Before-After Study of a Checklist to Improve Acute Care to ICU Handoffs

Transferring care of a patient is a critical process. The objective of this study was to evaluate a checklist to standardize handoffs from acute care to the intensive care unit (ICU). This was a single-center, before-after study of a checklist to standardize transfers of patients from acute care to the medical-cardiac ICU. Clinicians completed surveys about handoffs before and after checklist implementation. The association between study period and survey data was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression with cross-classified multilevel models. Surveys were completed by 179 clinicians. After checklist implementation, handoffs were more likely to occur in the ICU (OR 17.23; 95% CI, 1.81-164.19) and cover patient treatment preferences (OR 2.73; 95% CI, 1.12-6.66). However, checklist uptake was suboptimal (30% of responses indicated checklist use). Implementation of a checklist during acute care to ICU transfers is challenging. Signals suggesting process improvement warrant additional study.