Predictors of Nursing Graduate School Success.

Several factors influence success in nursing graduate school. This study collected retrospective data from students in a nursing graduate program to determine which factors predict success. Data were analyzed using a multiple regression analysis to predict success (i.e., graduation grade point average [GPA]) from student characteristics. The predictors were nursing course GPA, undergraduate science GPA, GPA upon admission to nursing graduate school, experience in a specialty, and the duration of that experience. Results indicate that admission, nursing, and undergraduate science GPA are more important for predicting success than previous experience. The predictors account for approximately 80 percent of the variance (R = .80).

Meta-Analyses of the Effects of Standardized Handoff Protocols on Patient, Provider, and Organizational Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The overall purpose was to understand the effects of handoff protocols using meta-analytic approaches. BACKGROUND: Standardized protocols have been required by the Joint Commission, but meta-analytic integration of handoff protocol research has not been conducted. METHOD: The primary outcomes investigated were handoff information passed during transitions of care, patient outcomes, provider outcomes, and organizational outcomes. Sources included Medline, SAGE, Embase, PsycINFO, and PubMed, searched from the earliest date available through March 30th, 2015. Initially 4,556 articles were identified, with 4,520 removed. This process left a final set of 36 articles, all which included pre-/postintervention designs implemented in live clinical/hospital settings. We also conducted a moderation analysis based on the number of items contained in each protocol to understand if the length of a protocol led to systematic changes in effect sizes of the outcome variables. RESULTS: Meta-analyses were conducted on 34,527 pre- and 30,072 postintervention data points. Results indicate positive effects on all four outcomes: handoff information (g = .71, 95% confidence interval [CI] [.63, .79]), patient outcomes (g = .53, 95% CI [.41, .65]), provider outcomes (g = .51, 95% CI [.41, .60]), and organizational outcomes (g = .29, 95% CI [.23, .35]). We found protocols to be effective, but there is significant publication bias and heterogeneity in the literature. Due to publication bias, we further searched the gray literature through greylit.org and found another 347 articles, although none were relevant to this research. Our moderation analysis demonstrates that for handoff information, protocols using 12 or more items led to a significantly higher proportion of information passed compared with protocols using 11 or fewer items. Further, there were numerous negative outcomes found throughout this meta-analysis, with trends demonstrating that protocols can increase the time for handover and the rate of errors of omission. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that handoff protocols tend to improve results on multiple levels, including handoff information passed and patient, provider, and organizational outcomes. These findings come with the caveat that publication bias exists in the literature on handoffs. Instances where protocols can lead to negative outcomes are also discussed. APPLICATION: Significant effects were found for protocols across provider types, regardless of expertise or area of clinical focus. It also appears that more thorough protocols lead to more information being passed, especially when those protocols consist of 12 or more items. Given these findings, publication bias is an apparent feature of this literature base. Recommendations to reduce the apparent publication bias in the field include changing the way articles are screened and published.

Utilizing Telemedicine in the Trauma Intensive Care Unit: Does It Impact Teamwork?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the impact of a telemedical robot on trauma intensive care unit (TICU) clinician teamwork (i.e., team attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions) during patient rounds. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two healthcare providers who conduct rounds volunteered to take surveys assessing teamwork attitudes and cognitions at three time periods: (1) the onset of the study, (2) the end of the 30-day control period, and (3) the end of the 30-day experimental period, which immediately followed the control period. Rounds were recorded throughout the 30-day control period and 30-day experimental period to observe provider behaviors. For the initial 30 days, there was no access to telemedicine. For the final 30 days, the rounding healthcare providers had access to the RP-7 robot (Intouch Health Inc., Santa Barbara, CA), a telemedical tool that can facilitate patient rounds conducted away from bedside. RESULTS: Using a one-tailed, one-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare trust at Times 1, 2, and 3, there was no significant effect on trust: F(2, 14)=1.20, p=0.16. When a one-tailed, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA to compare transactive memory systems (TMS) at Times 1, 2, and 3 was conducted, there was no significant effect on TMS: F(2, 15)=1.33, p=0.15. We conducted a one-tailed, one-way repeated-measures ANOVA to compare team psychological safety at Times 1, 2, and 3, and there was no significant effect on team psychological safety: F(2,15)=1.53, p=0.12. There was a significant difference in communication between rounds with and without telemedicine [t(25)=-1.76, p<0.05], such that there was more task-based communication during telerounds. Telemedicine increased task-based communication and did not negatively impact team trust, psychological safety, or TMS during rounds. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine may offer advantages for some teamwork competencies without sacrificing the efficacy of others and may be adopted by intact rounding teams without hindering teamwork.

The 6 "ws" of rapid response systems: best practices for improving development, implementation, and evaluation.

Delays in care have been cited as one of the primary contributors of preventable mortality; thus, quality patient safety is often contingent upon the delivery of timely clinical care. Rapid response systems (RRSs) have been touted as one mechanism to improve the ability of suitable staff to respond to deteriorating patients quickly and appropriately. Rapid response systems are defined as highly skilled individual(s) who mobilize quickly to provide medical care in response to clinical deterioration. While there is mounting evidence that RRSs are a valid strategy for managing obstetric emergencies, reducing adverse events, and improving patient safety, there remains limited insight into the practices underlying the development and execution of these systems. Therefore, the purpose of this article was to synthesize the literature and answer the primary questions necessary for successfully developing, implementing, and evaluating RRSs within inpatient settings-the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of RRSs.

Considerations for Multiteam Systems in Emergency Medical Services.

OBJECTIVE: Despite good intentions, mishaps in teamwork continue to affect patient's lives and plague the medical community at large and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in particular. Effective and efficient management of patient care necessitates that sets of multiple teams (i.e., multiteam systems [MTSs] - EMS ground crews, EMS air crews, dispatch, and receiving hospital teams) seamlessly work together. Although advances have been made to improve teams, little research has been dedicated to enhancing MTSs especially in the critical yet often under studied domain of EMS. The purpose of this paper is to assist the pre-hospital community in strengthening patient care by presenting considerations unique to multiteam systems. METHODS: We synthesized the literature pertinent to multi-team systems and emergency medical services. RESULTS: From this synthesis, we derived five unique considerations: goals, boundary spanning, adaptation, leadership, and social identity. CONCLUSIONS: MTSs are prevalent in prehospital care, as they define how multiple component healthcare teams work together to intervene in emergency situations. We provided some initial directions regarding considerations for success in EMS MTSs based on existing research, but we also recognize the need for further study on these issues.

Directly Comparing Handoff Protocols for Pediatric Hospitalists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Handoff protocols are often developed by brainstorming and consensus, and few are directly compared. We hypothesized that a handoff protocol (Flex 11) developed using a rigorous methodology would be more favorable in terms of clinicians' attitudes, behaviors, cognitions, or time-on-task when performing handoffs compared with a prevalent protocol (Situation Background Assessment Recommendation [SBAR]). METHODS: Using a between-groups, randomized control trial design (Flex 11 versus SBAR) during a pilot study in a simulated environment, 20 clinicians (13 attending physicians and 7 residents) received 3 patient handoffs from a standardized physician, managed the patients, and handed off the patients to the same standardized physician. Participants completed surveys assessing their attitudes and cognitions, and behaviors and handoff duration were assessed through observations. RESULTS: All data were analyzed using independent samples t tests. For attitudes, "ease of use" ratings were lower for SBAR participants than Flex 11 participants (P < .01), and "being helpful" ratings were lower for SBAR participants than Flex 11 participants (P = .02). For behaviors, results indicate no significant difference in the information acquired between the SBAR and Flex 11 protocols. However, SBAR participants gave significantly less information than Flex 11 participants (P < .01). For cognitions, SBAR and Flex 11 participants reported similar workload except for frustration. For handoff duration, there were no significant differences between the protocols (P = .36). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that Flex 11 is an efficient, beneficial tool in a simulated environment with pediatric clinicians. Future studies should evaluate this protocol in the inpatient setting.

Team training in obstetrics: A multi-level evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Obstetric complications and adverse patient events are often preventable. Teamwork and situational awareness (SA) can improve detection and coordination of critical obstetric (OB) emergencies, subsequently improving decision making and patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a team training intervention in improving learning and transfer of teamwork, SA, decision making, and cognitive bias as well as patient outcomes in OB. METHOD: An adapted TeamSTEPPS training program was delivered to OB clinicians. Training targeted communication, mutual support, situation monitoring, leadership, SA, and cognitive bias. We conducted a repeated measures multilevel evaluation of the training using Kirkpatrick's (1994) framework of training evaluation to determine impact on trainee reactions, learning, transfer, and results. Data were collected using surveys, situational judgment tests (SJTs), observations, and patient chart reviews. RESULTS: Participants perceived the training as useful. Additionally, participants acquired knowledge of communication strategies, though knowledge of other team competencies did not significantly improve nor did self-reported teamwork on the unit. Although SJT decision accuracy did not significantly improve for all scenarios, results of behavioral observation suggest that decision accuracy significantly improved on the job, and there was a marginally significant reduction in babies' hospital length of stay. DISCUSSION: These findings indicate that the training intervention was partially effective, but more work needs to be done to determine the conditions under which training is most effective, and the ways in which to sustain improvements. Future research is needed to confirm its generalizability to additional OB units and departments.