Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Republished: creating a safe, reliable hospital at night handover: a case study in implementation science.
McQuillan, Annette; Carthey, Jane; Catchpole, Ken; McCulloch, Peter; Ridout, Deborah A; Goldman, Allan P.
Afiliação
  • McQuillan A; Cardiothoracic Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Carthey J; Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
  • Catchpole K; Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, USA.
  • McCulloch P; Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
  • Ridout DA; Centre for Paediatric Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
  • Goldman AP; Cardiothoracic Unit, Great Ormond Street Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Postgrad Med J ; 90(1067): 493-501, 2014 Sep.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25140006
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

We developed protocols to handover patients from day to hospital at night (H@N) teams.

SETTING:

NHS paediatric specialist hospital.

METHOD:

We observed four handover protocols (baseline, Phases 1, 2 and 3) over 2 years. A mixed-method study (observation, interviews, task analysis, prospective risk assessment, document and case note review) explored the impact of different protocols on performance. INTERVENTION In Phase 1, a handover protocol was introduced to resolve problems with the baseline H@N handover. Following this intervention, two further revisions to the handover occurred, driven by staff feedback (Phases 2 and 3).

RESULTS:

Variations in performance between handover protocols on three process measures, start time efficiency, total length of handover, and number of distractions and interruptions, were identified. Univariate regression analysis showed statistically significant differences between handover protocols on two surrogate outcome

measures:

number of flagging omissions and the number of out of hours deteriorations (p=0.04 for Phase 3 vs Phase 1 for both measures (CI 1.04 to 4.08; CI 1.03 to 4.33), and for Phase 3 vs Phase 2 (p=0.006 and p=0.001 (CI 1.22 to 5.15; CI 1.62 to 9.0)), respectively). The Phase 1 and 2 handover protocols were effective at identifying patients whose clinical condition warranted review overnight. Performance on both surrogate outcome measures, length of handover and distractions, deteriorated in Phase 3.

CONCLUSIONS:

A carefully designed prioritisation process within the H@N handover can be effective at flagging acutely unwell patients. However, the protocol we introduced was unsustainable. In a complex healthcare system, sustainable implementation of new processes may be threatened by conflicting goals.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2014 Tipo de documento: Article