Systematic Review of Intraoperative Anesthesia Handoffs and Handoff Tools.

Intraoperative handoffs between anesthesia clinicians are critical for care continuity. However, such handoffs pose a significant threat to patient safety. This systematic review synthesizes the empirical evidence on the (a) effect of intraoperative handoffs on outcomes and (b) effect of intraoperative handoff tools on outcomes. All studies on intraoperative handoffs and handoff tools published until September 2019, in any study setting and population, and with no prespecified criteria on the type of comparison and outcome were included. Data extracted from the included studies were aggregated to identify common patterns related to the type of surgery, clinician(s) involved, patient population, handoff tool, the tool design approach (where relevant), tool implementation strategies, and finally, all reported clinical and process outcomes. Quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria. All included studies used adult patients. Eight studies were retrospective cohort studies that used administrative or electronic health record (EHR)-based databases to investigate the effects of intraoperative handoffs on morbidity and mortality. These studies included a total of 680,855 surgeries, with 139,426 of these surgeries having at least 1 handoff (20.47%). Seven of the studies found a positive association between intraoperative handoffs and considered outcomes. However, a pooled meta-analysis across these studies was not feasible across the retrospective studies due to differing surgical populations and varying definitions of the considered outcomes. Six studies used a nonrandomized prospective design to evaluate the effects of handoff tools on process-based outcomes such as clinician satisfaction, information transfer, handoff duration, and adherence. Five of the 6 handoff tools were checklist based. All prospective tool-based studies relied on small samples and reported a significant improvement on the considered process-based outcomes. The median quality score among retrospective (median [interquartile range {IQR}] = 9 [1]) was significantly higher than that of prospective (median [IQR] = 5 [1.5]) studies (U = 21, P = .0017). This systematic review provides a unique appraisal of the current state of intraoperative handoff research. To improve the quality and outcomes of handoffs, future efforts should focus on design and implementation of standardized handoff tools integrated within EHR systems, consider the use of similar metrics for evaluating handoff process and clinical outcomes, and improve the execution and reporting of studies using standard protocols and guidelines.

Association between paediatric intraoperative anaesthesia handover and adverse postoperative outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intraoperative handover of patient care from one anaesthesia clinician to another was associated with an increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes during paediatric surgeries. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective, population-based cohort study (1 April 2013-1 June 2018) at an academic medical centre. EXPOSURE: Intraoperative handover of care between pairs of anaesthesia clinicians from one care provider to another compared with no handover of anaesthesia care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and major postoperative morbidity within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome and 30-day hospital readmission. Inverse probability of exposure weighting using propensity scores for intraoperative handovers was calculated. Weighted logistic regression was used to determine the association between intraoperative anaesthesia handovers and outcomes. RESULTS: 78 321 paediatric surgical cases (n=5411 with handovers) were included for analysis. Patients were predominantly male (56.5%) with a median age of 6.56 (IQR: 2.65-12.53) years and a median anaesthesia duration of 76 (IQR: 55-126) min. In the weighted sample, the odds of the primary outcome (OR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.13; p=0.43), any morbidity (OR: 0.93; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.16; p=0.515), all-cause mortality (OR: 0.8; 95% CI 0.37 to 1.73; p=0.565) or 30-day readmission following surgery (OR: 0.99; 95% CI 0.84 to 1.18; p=0.95) did not significantly differ among surgeries with and without handovers. CONCLUSIONS: Among paediatric patients undergoing surgery, intraoperative anaesthesia handovers were not associated with adverse postoperative outcomes, after accounting for relevant covariates. These findings provide a preliminary perspective on the role of intraoperative handovers as a care-neutral event, with implications for improving safety.

Effect of an Alternative Newborn Naming Strategy on Wrong-Patient Errors: A Quasi-Experimental Study.

OBJECTIVES: Newborns are often assigned temporary names at birth. Temporary newborn names-often a combination of the mother's last name and the newborn's gender-are vulnerable to patient misidentification due to similarities with other newborns or between a mother and her newborn. We developed and implemented an alternative distinct naming strategy, and then compared its effectiveness on reducing the number of wrong-patient orders with the standard distinct naming strategy. METHODS: This study was conducted over a 14-month period in the newborn nursery and neonatal intensive care units of three hospitals that were part of the same health care system. We used a quasi-experimental study design using interrupted time series analysis to compare the differences in wrong-patient orders (an indicator of patient misidentification) before and after the implementation of the alternative distinct naming strategy. RESULTS: Overall, there were 25 wrong-patient errors per 10,000 orders during entire study period (36.8 per 10,000 before and 19.6 per 10,000 after). However, there was no statistically significant change in the rate of wrong-patient ordering errors after the transition from the distinct to the alternative distinct naming strategy (ß = 0.832, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.83 to 2.49, p = 0.326). We also found that, overall, 1.7% of the clinicians contributed to 62% of the wrong-patient errors. CONCLUSION: Although we did not find statistically significant differences in wrong-patient errors, the alternative distinct naming approach provides pragmatic advantages over its predecessors. In addition, the localization of wrong-patient errors within a small set of clinicians highlights the potential for developing strategies for delivering training to clinicians.