Improving clinical reasoning and communication during handover: An intervention study of the BRIEF-C tool.

BACKGROUND: Existing handover communication tools often lack a clear theoretical foundation, have limited psychometric evidence, and overlook effective communication strategies for enhancing diagnostic reasoning. This oversight becomes critical as communication breakdowns during handovers have been implicated in poor patient care. To address these issues, we developed a structured communication tool: Background, Responsible diagnosis, Included differential diagnosis, Excluded differential diagnosis, Follow-up, and Communication (BRIEF-C). It is informed by cognitive bias theory, shows evidence of reliability and validity of its scores, and includes strategies for actively sending and receiving information in medical handovers. DESIGN: A pre-test post-test intervention study. SETTING: Inpatient internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery units at one tertiary care hospital. INTERVENTION: The BRIEF-C tool was presented to internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery faculty and residents who participated in an in-person educational session, followed by a 2-week period where they practised using it with feedback. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical handovers were audiorecorded over 1 week for the pre- and again for the post-periods, then transcribed for analysis. Two faculty raters from internal medicine and orthopaedic surgery scored the transcripts of handovers using the BRIEF-C framework. The two raters were blinded to the time periods. RESULTS: A principal component analysis identified two subscales on the BRIEF-C: diagnostic clinical reasoning and communication, with high interitem consistency (Cronbach's alpha of 0.82 and 0.99, respectively). One sample t-test indicated significant improvement in diagnostic clinical reasoning (pre-test: M=0.97, SD=0.50; post-test: M=1.31, SD=0.64; t(64)=4.26, p<0.05, medium to large Cohen's d=0.63) and communication (pre-test: M=0.02, SD=0.16; post-test: M=0.48, SD=0.83); t(64)=4.52, p<0.05, large Cohen's d=0.83). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates evidence supporting the reliability and validity of scores on the BRIEF-C as good indicators of diagnostic clinical reasoning and communication shared during handovers.

Effect of Intraoperative Handovers of Anesthesia Care on Mortality, Readmission, or Postoperative Complications Among Adults: The HandiCAP Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intraoperative handovers of anesthesia care are common. Handovers might improve care by reducing physician fatigue, but there is also an inherent risk of losing critical information. Large observational analyses report associations between handover of anesthesia care and adverse events, including higher mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of handovers of anesthesia care on postoperative morbidity and mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a parallel-group, randomized clinical trial conducted in 12 German centers with patients enrolled between June 2019 and June 2021 (final follow-up, July 31, 2021). Eligible participants had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 or 4 and were scheduled for major inpatient surgery expected to last at least 2 hours. Interventions: A total of 1817 participants were randomized to receive either a complete handover to receive anesthesia care by another clinician (n = 908) or no handover of anesthesia care (n = 909). None of the participating institutions used a standardized handover protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, hospital readmission, or serious postoperative complications. There were 19 secondary outcomes, including the components of the primary composite, along with intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay. Results: Among 1817 randomized patients, 1772 (98%; mean age, 66 [SD, 12] years; 997 men [56%]; and 1717 [97%] with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of 3) completed the trial. The median total duration of anesthesia was 267 minutes (IQR, 206-351 minutes), and the median time from start of anesthesia to first handover was 144 minutes in the handover group (IQR, 105-213 minutes). The composite primary outcome occurred in 268 of 891 patients (30%) in the handover group and in 284 of 881 (33%) in the no handover group (absolute risk difference [RD], -2.5%; 95% CI, -6.8% to 1.9%; odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10; P = .27). Nineteen of 889 patients (2.1%) in the handover group and 30 of 873 (3.4%) in the no handover group experienced all-cause 30-day mortality (absolute RD, -1.3%; 95% CI, -2.8% to 0.2%; OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.10; P = .11); 115 of 888 (13%) vs 136 of 872 (16%) were readmitted to the hospital (absolute RD, -2.7%; 95% CI, -5.9% to 0.6%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.05; P = .12); and 195 of 890 (22%) vs 189 of 874 (22%) experienced serious postoperative complications (absolute RD, 0.3%; 95% CI, -3.6% to 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.28; P = .91). None of the 19 prespecified secondary end points differed significantly. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing extended surgical procedures, there was no significant difference between the patients randomized to receive handover of anesthesia care from one clinician to another, compared with the no handover group, in the composite primary outcome of mortality, readmission, or serious postoperative complications within 30 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04016454.

Implementación de un programa basado en IPASS en UCI / Implementation of an IPASS-based program in the ICU

Introducción: El uso de herramientas estandarizadas como estrategia de comunicación para brindar información relevante, precisa y actualizada, forma parte de las iniciativas de calidad en las instituciones que cumplen altos estándares en la atención de pacientes. Objetivo: Describir la implementación de un programa de traspaso (IPASS) en unidades de cuidados intensivos pediátricos específicos. Material y métodos: Estudio cuasi-experimental antes y después de una intervención, no controlado, utilizando como sujetos a los profesionales de la salud involucrados en traspasos de pacientes de la unidad de terapia intensiva cardiovascular (UCI 35) e inmunosuprimidos (UCI 72). La intervención consistió en la introducción de un paquete de medidas de estandarización del traspaso de pacientes que consta de: una herramienta escrita, una mnemotecnia oral, una capacitación de trabajo en equipo, observación y devolución estandarizada de los traspasos, basados en la metodología IPASS. Se realizó además una encuesta de percepción de seguridad, tanto en la etapa pre y post intervención. Se comparó el cumplimiento de cada componente del traspaso antes y después de la intervención mediante la prueba de chi2 . Resultados: Se realizaron 101 observaciones de traspaso y 56 encuestas. La mediana de pacientes por cada observación fue 6 (r: 4 a 12) y el tiempo promedio de 26± 11 min. Conclusiones: El uso de un paquete de medidas de estandarización del traspaso de pacientes posquirúrgicos cardiovasculares e inmunosuprimidos aumentó significativamente la presencia de información clave sobre criticidad de la enfermedad, acciones y situaciones de contingencia, junto con la inclusión de la síntesis por el receptor del traspaso (AU)

Introduction: The use of standardized tools as a communication strategy to provide relevant, accurate, and up-to-date information is part of quality initiatives in institutions that adhere to high standards in patient care. Objective: To describe the implementation of a handoff program (IPASS) in specific pediatric intensive care units. Methods: An uncontrolled, quasi-experimental, beforeand-after study. Subjects were healthcare providers involved in patient handoffs in the cardiovascular (ICU 35) and immunocompromised-patient (ICU 72) intensive care units. The intervention consisted of the introduction of a bundle to standardize patient handoff consisting of: a written tool, an oral mnemonic, teamwork training, observation, and standardized feedback for handoffs based on the IPASS methodology. A safety perception survey was also carried out, both in the pre- and post-intervention stage. Compliance with each handoff component before and after the intervention was compared using the Chi-squared test. Results: 101 handoff observations and 56 surveys were conducted. The median number of patients per observation was 6 (r: 4 to 12) and the mean handoff time was 26±11 min. Conclusions: The use of a standardized handoff bundle for post-surgical cardiovascular and immunocompromised patients significantly increased the availability of key information on disease severity, actions, and contingency situations, as well as a synthesis by the handoff receiver (AU)

Association Between Handover of Anesthesiology Care and 1-Year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Importance: Handovers of anesthesia care from one anesthesiologist to another is an important intraoperative event. Despite its association with adverse events after noncardiac surgery, its impact in the context of cardiac surgery remains unclear. Objective: To compare the outcomes of patients who were exposed to anesthesia handover vs those who were unexposed to anesthesia handover during cardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, included Ontario residents who were 18 years or older and had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic, mitral, tricuspid valve, or thoracic aorta surgical procedures between 2008 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were non-Ontario residency status and other concomitant procedures. Statistical analysis was conducted from April 2021 to June 2021, and data collection occurred between November 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: Complete handover of anesthesia care, where the case is completed by the replacement anesthesiologist. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were mortality within 30 days and 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes were patient-defined adverse cardiac and noncardiac events (PACE), intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital lengths of stay (LOS). Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the propensity score was used to estimate adjusted effect measures. Mortality was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model, PACE using a cause-specific hazard model with death as a competing risk, and LOS using Poisson regression. Results: Of the 102 156 patients in the cohort, 25 207 (24.7%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (10.8) years; and 72 843 of surgical procedures (71.3%) were performed in teaching hospitals. Handover occurred in 1926 patients (1.9%) and was associated with higher risks of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.41-2.54) and 1-year mortality (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.31-2.12), as well as longer ICU (risk ratio [RR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22-1.68) and hospital (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.28) LOS. There was no statistically significant association between handover and PACE (30 days: HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79-1.49; 1 year: HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: Handover of anesthesia care during cardiac surgical procedures was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates and increased health care resource use. Further research is needed to evaluate and systematically improve the handover process qualitatively.

STEPP IN: A Multicenter Quality Improvement Collaborative Standardizing Postoperative Handoffs.

OBJECTIVE: To reduce care failures by 30% through implementation of standardized communication processes for postoperative handoff in NICU patients undergoing surgery over 12 months and sustained over 6 months. METHODS: Nineteen Children's Hospitals Neonatal Consortium centers collaborated in a quality improvement initiative to reduce postoperative care failures in a surgical neonatal setting by decreasing respiratory care failures and all other communication failures. Evidence-based clinical practice recommendations and a collaborative framework supported local teams' implementation of standardized postoperative handoff communication. Process measures included compliance with center-defined handoff staff presence, use of center-defined handoff tool, and the proportion of handoffs with interruptions. Participant handoff satisfaction was the balancing measure. Baseline data were collected for 8 months, followed by a 12-month action phase and 7-month sustain phase. RESULTS: On average, 181 postoperative handoffs per month were monitored across sites, and 320 respondents per month assessed the handoff process. Communication failures specific to respiratory care decreased by 73.2% (8.2% to 4.6% and with a second special cause signal to 2.2%). All other communication care failures decreased by 49.4% (17% to 8.6%). Eighty-four percent of participants reported high satisfaction. Compliance with use of the handoff tool and required staff attendance increased whereas interruptions decreased over the project time line. CONCLUSIONS: Team engagement within a quality improvement framework had a positive impact on the perioperative handoff process for high-risk surgical neonates. We improved care as demonstrated by a decrease in postoperative care failures while maintaining high provider satisfaction.

Standardised handover process with checklist improves quality and safety of care in the postanaesthesia care unit: the Postanaesthesia Team Handover trial.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunication is a leading cause of preventable incidents in healthcare. A number of checklists have been created in an attempt to improve patient outcomes with only a small impact. However, the 2009 WHO Surgical Safety Checklist demonstrated benefits in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality. Our aim was to determine whether use of a Postanaesthesia Team Handover (PATH) checklist would reduce hypoxaemic events in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: This single-centre, prospective, pre-/post-implementation study was conducted between February 2019 and July 2020 in the PACU of Versailles Private Hospital, Paris, France. Pre-PATH implementation data were collected for 294 consecutive adult patients (≥18 yr old) admitted to the PACU and post-PATH implementation data were collected for 293 consecutive patients. The primary outcome was the rate of hypoxaemic events post-surgery during PACU stay. RESULTS: The rates of hypoxaemic events were 4.1% (11/267 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 2.3-7.2%]) before the PATH checklist was introduced and 0.8% (2/266 [95% CI: 0.2-2.7%]) after. Patients in the PATH group were 5.6 times (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI: 1.3-33.6], P=0.041) less likely to have a hypoxaemic event than those in the control group. The handover process in the PATH checklist group also had significantly less interruptions (38.6% control vs 20.7% PATH; OR=2.5 [95% CI: 1.7-3.7]; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the PATH checklist in adult patients post-surgery was associated with a reduction in the rate of hypoxaemic events in the PACU. These findings support standardisation of the handover process with checklists following anaesthesia and surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03972423.

[Observational study of the handover with the SBAR method at Bari Polyclinic complex]. / Studio osservazionale del passaggio di consegne col metodo SBAR nell'Azienda Consorziale Policlinico di Bari.

INTRODUCTION: The handing over of deliveries between the emergency service personnel 118 and the Emergency Medicine and Surgery staff (MeCHAU) is fundamental for the continuity of care for the patient. The study aims to investigate the methods of handing over medical staff from the ambulance to the MeCHAU nurses of the Policlinico di Bari to verify if it has been applied and, if so, to what extent the SBAR method has been used ("Situation", "Background", "Assessment", "Recommendation") recommended both in literature and by the World Health Organization (WHO). METHOD: A card was created referring to the SBAR method and was applied in all cases of trauma and illness accepted by the MeCHAU in the period between July-August 2017. For each case, the following were evaluated: start and end delivery times, total time, color code assigned by 118, color code assigned by MeCHAU, type of ambulance assigned. RESULTS: A total of 140 deliveries were considered. Of these, the average time in relation to the color code (in minutes), the number of information received based on the color code, whether or not the SBAR order was complied with and the completeness of deliveries based on the type was evaluated. of ambulance assigned from 118. CONCLUSIONS: From the results obtained, the transmission of deliveries has not been shown to be effective, resulting in prolonged times and a low percentage of information provided for all color codes. It follows that the use of the SBAR method in the handing over of deliveries could improve the effectiveness of the intervention and make the delivery.

Handover Practices in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: A Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The handover period has been identified as a particularly vulnerable period for communication breakdown leading to patient safety events. Clear and concise handover is especially critical in high-acuity care settings such as trauma, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care. There is no consensus for the most effective and efficient means of evaluating or performing handover in this population. We aimed to characterize the current handover practices and perceptions in trauma and acute care surgery. METHODS: A survey was sent to 2265 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma via email regarding handoff practices at their institution. Respondents were queried regarding their practice setting, average census, level of trauma center, and patients (trauma, emergency general surgery, and/or intensive care). Data regarding handover practices were gathered including frequency of handover, attendees, duration, timing, and formality. Finally, perceptions of handover including provider satisfaction, desire for improvement, and effectiveness were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty surveys (17.1%) were completed. The majority (73.4%) of respondents practiced at level 1 trauma centers (58.9%) and were trauma/emergency general surgeons (86.5%). Thirty-five percent of respondents reported a formalized handover and 52% used a standardized tool for handover. Only 18% of respondents had ever received formal training, but most (51.6%) thought this training would be helpful. Eighty-one percent of all providers felt handover was essential for patient care, and 77% felt it prevented harm. Seventy-two percent thought their handover practice needed improvement, and this was more common as the average patient census increased. The most common suggestions for improvement were shorter and more concise handover (41.6%), different handover medium (24.5%), and adding verbal communication (13.9%). CONCLUSION: Trauma and emergency general surgeons perceive handover as essential for patient care and the majority desire improvement of their current handover practices. Methods identified to improve the handover process include standardization, simplification, and verbal interaction, which allows for shared understanding. Formal education and best practice guidelines should be developed.

Cohort Study on the Implementation of a Surgical Checklist from the Operating Room to the Postanesthesia Care Unit.

PURPOSE: To provide evidence of a well-structured information transfer that prevents the loss of information relevant to patient care. DESIGN: Pre-post cohort study on the implementation of a surgical checklist from the operating room to postanesthesia care unit. METHODS: Main variable was the transfer of relevant and correct information. The secondary variables include time, interruptions, and satisfaction. FINDINGS: In the prechecklist stage, 59 transfers were collected; with an average time of 68.5 seconds, 41.7% of the transfers encountered interruptions, and only 8.5% of the reports were complete with all data. After instituting the checklist, 63 transfers were analyzed with an average time of 96.4 seconds, no interruptions occurred in 71.3% of the transfers, and all the items were transmitted in 92.1% of the cases. Number of interferences decreased. Transfer time increased significantly, but 80.3% of staff found the checklist useful. CONCLUSIONS: A written and structured checklist minimizes the loss of relevant information, thus improving safety in the process.

Associations between early handoffs, length of stay and complications in internal medicine wards: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: In US healthcare system, handoffs are associated with an increase in medical error and in hospital length of stay. In non-US healthcare systems, this phenomenon has not been well studied. We studied the association between early handoffs (EH) in a non-US internal medicine ward with length of stay (LOS), use of resources, major complication (MC) and discharge to post-acute care (PAC) facility. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study on patients admitted to the general internal medicine division. Patients with EH (defined as a transfer of responsibility between primary teams within the first 72 h) were compared with patients without EH. The primary outcome was LOS in the general internal medicine division. Secondary outcomes were the use of resources, the incidence of MC (transfer to intensive care, to intermediate care or death) and discharge to a PAC facility. RESULTS: We included 11,869 patients, 38% of whom were in the EH group. Patients were 67.7±16.6 years old and 53% were males. EH was independently associated with an increase of LOS (+6.4% [95% CI, 3.5%-9.5%], P < .001) and with an increased rate of MC (OR 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1-1.7], P = .012). In our subgroup analysis, the association between early handoff and LOS and MC rate were not statistically significant when the admission occurred on public holidays and weekends. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted in our general internal medicine division, early handoffs were associated with significantly higher length of stay and major complication rate, but not in patients admitted during week-ends.

An electronic handoff tool to facilitate transfer of care from anesthesia to nursing in intensive care units.

Checklists are commonly used to structure the communication process between anesthesia nursing healthcare providers during the transfer of care, or handoff, of a patient after surgery. However, intraoperative information is often recalled from memory leading to omission of critical data or incomplete information exchange during the patient handoff. We describe the implementation of an electronic anesthesia information transfer tool (T2) for use in the handover of intubated patients to the intensive care unit. A pilot observational study auditing handovers against a pre-existing checklist was performed to evaluate information reporting and attendee participation. There was a modest improvement in information reporting on part of the anesthesia provider, as well as team discussions regarding the current hemodynamic status of the patient. While T2 was well-received, further evaluation of the tool in different handover settings can clarify its potential for decreasing adverse communication-related events.

Implementing Bedside Handoff in the Emergency Department: A Practice Improvement Project.

INTRODUCTION: Handoff in the emergency department is considered a high-risk period for medical errors to occur. In response to concerns about the effectiveness of the nursing handoff in the emergency department of a Midwestern trauma center, a practice improvement project was implemented. The process change required nursing handoff at shift changes to be conducted at the bedside, using an adapted situation, background, assessment, recommendation (SBAR) communication tool. METHODS: For this project, the intervention effectiveness was measured using pre- and post-implementation scores on a nursing handoff questionnaire, selected items on the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, and handoff observations documented by nursing leadership. RESULTS: Questionnaire results revealed no change between pre- and post-implementation for 5 of the 7 questions. Responses to 2 questions showed improvement post-implementation. Scores from the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture improved from 2015 to 2016. Observation data showed that some nurses needed prompting to perform the handoff at the bedside, and only 40% used the electronic medical record during handoff. DISCUSSION: Results showed that nurses found the SBAR bedside report method easy to use and prevented the loss of patient information more effectively than pre-intervention practice. Despite the strong evidence in the literature supporting bedside handoff, questions remain concerning its sustainability, as some nurses may resist such a change in the process of shift reporting.

Exploring variation in how ambulance services address non-conveyance: a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: There is considerable variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services in England. The aim was to explore variation in how each ambulance service addressed non-conveyance for calls ending in telephone advice and discharge at scene. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. SETTING: Ten large regional ambulance services covering 99% of the population in England. PARTICIPANTS: Between four and seven interviewees from each ambulance service including managers, paramedics and healthcare commissioners, totalling 49 interviews. METHODS: Telephone semistructured interviews. RESULTS: The way interviewees in each ambulance service discussed non-conveyance within their organisation varied for three broad themes. First, ambulance service senior management appeared to set the culture around non-conveyance within an organisation, viewing it either as an opportunity or as a risky endeavour. Although motivation levels to undertake non-conveyance did not appear to be directly affected by the stability of an ambulance service in terms of continuity of leadership and externally assessed quality, this stability could affect the ability of the organisation to innovate to increase non-conveyance rates. Second, descriptions of workforce configuration differed between ambulance services, as well as how this workforce was used, trained and valued. Third, interviewees in each ambulance service described health and social care in the wider emergency and urgent care system differently in terms of availability of services that could facilitate non-conveyance, the amount of collaborative working between health and social care services and the ambulance service and complexity related to the numbers of services and healthcare commissioners with whom they had to work. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that factors within and outside the control of ambulance services may contribute to variation in non-conveyance rates. These findings can be tested in a quantitative analysis of factors affecting variation in non-conveyance rates between ambulance services in England.

Implementation of a standardized handoff protocol for post-operative admissions to the surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: The transfer of critically ill patients from the operating room (OR) to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) involves handoffs between multiple providers. Incomplete handoffs lead to poor communication, a major contributor to sentinel events. Our aim was to determine whether handoff standardization led to improvements in caregiver involvement and communication. METHODS: A prospective intervention study was designed to observe thirty one patient handoffs from OR to SICU for 49 critical parameters including caregiver presence, peri-operative details, and time required to complete key steps. Following a six month implementation period, thirty one handoffs were observed to determine improvement. RESULTS: A significant improvement in presence of physician providers including intensivists and surgeons was observed (p = 0.0004 and p < 0.0001, respectively). Critical details were communicated more consistently, including procedure performed (p = 0.0048), complications (p < 0.0001), difficult airways (p < 0.0001), ventilator settings (p < 0.0001) and pressor requirements (p = 0.0134). Conversely, handoff duration did not increase significantly (p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a standardized protocol for handoffs between OR and SICU significantly improved caregiver involvement and reduced information omission without affecting provider time commitment.

Comunicação na clínica do cuidado de enfermagem na terapia intensiva: o caso do handover / Communication in nursing care clinic in the intensive care: the case of handover

Introdução: Unidades de Terapia Intensiva têm como objetivo fornecer suporte a pacientes críticos que exigem cuidados complexos e especializados, realizados por uma equipe multiprofissional e interdisciplinar, com destaque para o enfermeiro. Neste ambiente, a comunicação está intensamente presente na troca de informações entre profissionais de saúde durante a transferência de turnos, o handover. Falhas nessa comunicação podem causar danos aos pacientes. Objetivo: Descrever o processo de comunicação entre os profissionais da equipe de enfermagem da terapia intensiva durante o handover; analisar tal processo de comunicação quanto à existência de ruídos e suas repercussões na segurança da prática de cuidado ao paciente hospitalizado; e discutir a comunicação na clínica do cuidado de enfermagem na terapia intensiva sob a ótica da segurança do paciente. Método: Estudo de campo, qualitativo e de cunho exploratório. O lócus foi a Unidade de Terapia Intensiva cirúrgica de um hospital federal, tendo participado 42 membros da equipe de enfermagem atuantes no handover e no cuidado direto ao paciente. A produção dos dados ocorreu através de gravação de áudio durante o handover, observação sistemática das práticas de cuidado da equipe de enfermagem e entrevista semiestruturada. Os áudios foram transcritos para um instrumento de handover elaborado com base na literatura, que foram analisados através de estatística descritiva quanto à presença ou ausência da informação nos itens que o compunham, sua completude e a presença de erros. Os dados da observação passaram por descrição densa. As entrevistas foram analisadas através da análise de conteúdo temático. Resultados: Houve ausência e incompletude de algum tipo de informação em todos os instrumentos. O erro esteve presente em 2,3% dos instrumentos analisados. Dentre as ausências, destaca-se o item avaliação do quadro do paciente, ausente em 99,2%, seguido pelo item plano de cuidados com 91,6% e os dados de identificação do perfil clínico do paciente com 67,93%. Quanto à incompletude, no item Dados objetivos, que se referem ao exame físico do paciente, as informações estavam incompletas em 100% dos instrumentos; nos Dados subjetivos, que tratavam da história do paciente e sua evolução clínica, estavam incompletos em 88,5% dos instrumentos; e os dados de perfil clínico dos pacientes com 32% de incompletude. A observação das práticas assistenciais mostrou que as falhas na comunicação entre os profissionais de enfermagem interferiram diretamente no processo de cuidar, pois geraram procedimentos desnecessários que poderiam acarretar danos aos pacientes. Os dados das entrevistas apontaram o reconhecimento da importância do handover, a comunicação face-a-face na beira de leito com a presença de todos os membros, livre participação destes no processo de comunicação, a utilização da comunicação verbal e escrita, o bom relacionamento entre a equipe de enfermagem. Também foram evidenciados ruídos como a ausência/incompletude de informações sobre o paciente, além chegadas atrasadas ou saídas antecipadas, tom de voz baixo, conversas paralelas, uso de dispositivos celulares, e pouca participação dos técnicos. Conclusão: Entender o papel da comunicação é importante para evitar ruídos que podem causar a descontinuidade da informação e resultar em procedimentos que colocam em risco a segurança do paciente. A partir dos ruídos identificados, propõe-se a elaboração de barreiras de segurança que promovam a comunicação efetiva no handover de enfermagem na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva.(AU)

Controlled trial to improve resident sign-out in a medical intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Poor sign-out or handover of care may lead to preventable patient harm. Critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICU) are complex and prone to rapid clinical deterioration. If clinical deterioration occurs, timeliness of appropriate interventions is essential to prevent or reduce adverse outcomes. Therefore sign-outs need to efficiently transmit key information and provide anticipatory guidance. Interventions to improve resident-to-resident ICU sign-outs have not been well described. We conducted a controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a standardised ICU sign-out process to the usual ICU sign-out. DESIGN: Prospective controlled trial. SETTING: A 26-bed medical intensive care unit (MICU) in an urban tertiary academic medical centre. SUBJECTS: Residents rotating through the MICU. INTERVENTIONS: ICU-specific written sign-out template. METHODS: Residents completed postcall surveys assessing satisfaction with verbal and written sign-outs and incidence of non-routine events. Our main outcome of interest was the occurrence of non-routine events. MAIN RESULTS: Compared with the intervention group, on significantly more nights, night float residents in the control group encountered patients who were sicker than sign-out would have suggested (15.94% vs 43.75%; p<0.0001). On significantly fewer nights, night float residents in the intervention group indicated that either something happened to patients that was unexpected (18.84% vs 36.51%; p=0.023) or they were insufficiently prepared for (4.35% vs 35.94%; p<0.0001). Similarly, on fewer nights, residents in the intervention group indicated that they had to perform interventions that were unplanned or unanticipated (15.9% vs 37.7%; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: A structured sign-out process compared with usual sign-out significantly reduced the occurrence of non-routine events in an academic MICU.

Evaluating the Impact of Intraoperative Surgical Team Handoffs on Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the impact of intraoperative personnel handoffs on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed SCPs performed at an academic center between 2009 and 2014. We analyzed the number of staff handoffs, defined as any instance a scrub technician (tech) or circulating nurse handed off responsibility for a break or shift change. Outcomes included operative (OR) time and composite variables for major complications (conversion to an open procedure, bladder injury, bowel injury, blood transfusion, infection, ileus, bowel obstruction, readmission, or mesh complication) and prolapse recurrence (prolapse at or beyond the hymen or retreatment). Postoperative complications were defined as being within 6 weeks of surgery. Mesh complications and prolapse recurrence were recorded for the entire 68-month study period. RESULTS: Of 814 patients, 97.4% were white, 85.3% postmenopausal, mean (SD) age 59.7 (8.8) years, and mean (SD) body mass index 27.5 (4.5) kg/m. Most had stage 3 prolapse (n = 563, 69.9%). There were 478 (58.7%) laparoscopic and 336 (41.3%) robotic SCPs. The median scrub tech and nurse handoff per case was 1.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.0-1.0) and 1.0 (IQR, 1.0-2.0), respectively. Mean (SD) OR time was 204.8 (69.0) minutes. One hundred twenty-nine patients (15.8%) had a major complication and 45 (7.5%) experienced prolapse recurrence over a median follow-up interval of 41.0 weeks (IQR, 12.0-101.0). On multivariable linear regression, each tech and nurse handoff was associated with an increased OR time of 13.6 (P < 0.001) and 9.4 minutes (P < 0.001), respectively. Thus, the median of 1 tech and 1 nurse handoff per case will increase OR time by 23.0 minutes (11.2%). On multivariable logistic regression, staff handoffs were not associated with major complications or prolapse recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative scrub technician and circulating nurse handoffs increased OR time for minimally invasive SCP procedures.

Shift-to-Shift Handoff Effects on Patient Safety and Outcomes.

Multiple health care organizations have identified handoffs as a source of clinical errors; however, few studies have linked handoff interventions to improved patient outcomes. This systematic review of English-language research articles, published January 2008 to May 2015 and focusing on shift-to-shift handoff interventions and patient outcomes, yielded 10 774 unique articles. Twenty-one articles met inclusion criteria, measuring each of the following: patient falls (n = 7), reportable events (n = 6), length of stay (n = 4), mortality (n = 4), code calls (n = 4), medication errors (n = 4), medical errors (n = 3), procedural complications (n = 2), pressure ulcers (n = 2), weekend discharges (n = 2), and nosocomial infections (n = 2). One study each also measured time to first intervention, restraint use, overnight transfusions, and out-of-hours deteriorations. Studies that reported funding had higher quality scores. It is difficult to identify trends in the handoff research because of simultaneous implementation of multiple interventions and heterogeneity of the interventions, outcomes measured, and settings. The authors call for increased handoff research funding, especially for studies that include patient outcome measures.

Intraoperative Handoffs and Postoperative Complications Among Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Oncology Operations.

There is evidence that systems-based factors influence surgical outcomes of intraoperative and postoperative morbidity. The goal of this study was to provide an exploratory analysis of systems-based variables and their associations with surgical outcomes in gynecologic oncology patients. We merged electronic records from operating room software with billing claims from major surgeries performed from 2011 to 2013, at a tertiary care academic medical center. Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between baseline demographic and clinical covariates (age, comorbidity, procedure type, and surgeon volume), the main exposure variables (case start time, case order, and personnel handoffs), and the primary outcome of 30-day postoperative complications. Multiple logistic regression models were created to analyze the contributing effect of each systemic variable on postoperative complications. The overall rate of postoperative complications among patients was 31.4% (n = 182). Although traditional risk factors of comorbidity, procedure type, and case length were the strongest primary drivers of complication risk, there was a significant relationship between handoffs among surgical scrub technicians and postoperative complications (odds ratio: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.00-4.47). As a novel finding in surgical quality and safety research, this supports greater efforts into integrating key staffing information into studies of systemic variables and surgical outcomes.

Intraoperative Care Transitions Are Not Associated with Postoperative Adverse Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Whether anesthesia care transitions and provision of short breaks affect patient outcomes remains unclear. METHODS: The authors determined the number of anesthesia handovers and breaks during each case for adults admitted between 2005 and 2014, along with age, sex, race, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status, start time and duration of surgery, and diagnosis and procedure codes. The authors defined a collapsed composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidities based on primary and secondary diagnoses. The relationship between the total number of anesthesia handovers during a case and the collapsed composite outcome was assessed with a multivariable logistic regression. The relationship between the total number of anesthesia handovers during a case and the components of the composite outcome was assessed using multivariate generalized estimating equation methods. Additionally, the authors analyzed major complications and/or death within 30 days of surgery based on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-defined events. RESULTS: A total of 140,754 anesthetics were identified for the primary analysis. The number of anesthesia handovers was not found to be associated (P = 0.19) with increased odds of postoperative mortality and serious complications, as measured by the collapsed composite, with odds ratio for a one unit increase in handovers of 0.957; 95% CI, 0.895 to 1.022, when controlled for potential confounding variables. A total of 8,404 anesthetics were identified for the NSQIP analysis (collapsed composite odds ratio, 0.868; 95% CI, 0.718 to 1.049 for handovers). CONCLUSIONS: In the analysis of intraoperative handovers, anesthesia care transitions were not associated with an increased risk of postoperative adverse outcomes.