Performance of a cognitive load inventory during simulated handoffs: Evidence for validity

BACKGROUND

Advancing patient safety during handoffs remains a public health priority. The application of cognitive load theory offers promise, but is currently limited by the inability to measure cognitive load types.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and collect validity evidence for a revised self-report inventory that measures cognitive load types during a handoff.

METHODS

Based on prior published work, input from experts in cognitive load theory and handoffs, and a think-aloud exercise with residents, a revised Cognitive Load Inventory for Handoffs was developed. The Cognitive Load Inventory for Handoffs has items for intrinsic, extraneous, and germane load. Students who were second- and sixth-year students recruited from a Dutch medical school participated in four simulated handoffs (two simple and two complex cases). At the end of each handoff, study participants completed the Cognitive Load Inventory for Handoffs, Paas' Cognitive Load Scale, and one global rating item for intrinsic load, extraneous load, and germane load, respectively. Factor and correlational analyses were performed to collect evidence for validity.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis yielded a single factor that combined intrinsic and germane loads. The extraneous load items performed poorly and were removed from the model. The score from the combined intrinsic and germane load items associated, as predicted by cognitive load theory, with a commonly used measure of overall cognitive load (Pearson's r = 0.83, p < 0.001), case complexity (beta = 0.74, p < 0.001), level of experience (beta = -0.96, p < 0.001), and handoff accuracy (r = -0.34, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

These results offer encouragement that intrinsic load during handoffs may be measured via a self-report measure. Additional work is required to develop an adequate measure of extraneous load.

Influence of learner knowledge and case complexity on handover accuracy and cognitive load: results from a simulation study

CONTEXT

The handover represents a high-risk event in which errors are common and lead to patient harm. A better understanding of the cognitive mechanisms of handover errors is essential to improving handover education and practice.

OBJECTIVES

This paper reports on an experiment conducted to study the effects of learner knowledge, case complexity (i.e. cases with or without a clear diagnosis) and their interaction on handover accuracy and cognitive load.

METHODS

Participants were 52 Dutch medical students in Years 2 and 6. The experiment employed a repeated-measures design with two explanatory variables: case complexity (simple or complex) as the within-subject variable, and learner knowledge (as indicated by illness script maturity) as the between-subject covariate. The dependent variables were handover accuracy and cognitive load. Each participant performed a total of four simulated handovers involving two simple cases and two complex cases.

RESULTS

Higher illness script maturity predicted increased handover accuracy (p < 0.001) and lower cognitive load (p = 0.007). Case complexity did not independently affect either outcome. For handover accuracy, there was no interaction between case complexity and illness script maturity. For cognitive load, there was an interaction effect between illness script maturity and case complexity, indicating that more mature illness scripts reduced cognitive load less in complex cases than in simple cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Students with more mature illness scripts performed more accurate handovers and experienced lower cognitive load. For cognitive load, these effects were more pronounced in simple than complex cases. If replicated, these findings suggest that handover curricula and protocols should provide support that varies according to the knowledge of the trainee.

The High Impact of Penicillin Allergy Registration in Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Suspected penicillin allergy (Pen-A) is often not verified or excluded by diagnostic testing.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence and impact of Pen-A registration in a Dutch University Medical Center.

METHODS

In a prospective matched cohort study, all admitted patients (July 2013-July 2014) who underwent a pharmacotherapeutic interview were selected. Patients with a registered Pen-A were matched on age, sex, and department of admission with up to 3 patients without a registered Pen-A. Relative risks (RRs) of receiving a reserve antibiotic, death during hospitalization, and rehospitalization were compared in the 2 cohorts. The number and type of antibiotics prescribed during admission and duration of hospitalization were compared.

RESULTS

Of 17,959 patients, 1010 (5.6%) patients (66.7% women; median age, 55 years) had a Pen-A registration. These patients had a higher risk of receiving reserve antibiotics (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.56) and of being rehospitalized within 12 weeks (RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.49). A significantly larger proportion of Pen-A registered patients received reserve antibiotics such as tetracyclines (1.8% vs 0.8%), macrolides/lincosamides/streptogramins (12.5% vs 4.9%), and quinolones (7.9% vs 4.3%) or received 2 or more types of antibiotics during hospitalization (21.7% vs 16.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence of Pen-A registration in hospitalized patients is high, has high impact on antibiotic prescribing, and is associated with a higher risk of readmission. Verification of the Pen-A in hospitalized patients might restrict the use of reserve antibiotics and improve patient outcome.