BACKGROUND: Effective handoffs in the intensive care unit (ICU) are key to patient safety. PURPOSE: This article aims to raise awareness of the significance of structured and thorough handoffs and highlights possible challenges as well as means for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on the available literature, the evidence regarding handoffs in ICUs is summarized and suggestions for practical implementation are derived. RESULTS: The quality of handoffs has an impact on patient safety. At the same time, communication in the intensive care setting is particularly challenging due to the complexity of cases, a disruptive work environment, and a multitude of inter- and intraprofessional interactions. Hierarchical team structures, deficiencies in feedback and error-management culture, (technical) language barriers in communication, as well as substantial physical and psychological stress may negatively influence the effectiveness of handoffs. Sets of interventions such as the implementation of checklists, mnemonics, and communication workshops contribute to a more structured and thorough handoff process and have the potential to significantly improve patient safety. CONCLUSION: Effective handoffs are the cornerstone of high-quality and safe patient care but face particular challenges in ICUs. Interventional measures such as structuring handoff concepts and periodic communication trainings can help to improve handoffs and thus increase patient safety.
Intensive Care Units , Patient Handoff , Patient Safety , Humans , Patient Handoff/organization & administration , Patient Handoff/standards , Germany , Checklist , Interdisciplinary Communication , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Patient Care Team/organization & administration , Critical Care/standards
STUDY DESIGN: This single-center retrospective study analyzed patients with an implant-associated infection of spinal instrumentation (four or more segments) treated between 2010 and 2018. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the treatment of implant-associated infections of long-segment spinal instrumentation and to define risk factors for implant removal. OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: Implant-associated infection occurs in 0.7%-20% of spinal instrumentation. Significant blood loss, delayed reoperation, and use of effective antibiotics are reported risk factors for implant removal. METHODS: Patients with superficial infections not involving the implant were excluded. All patients received surgical and antibiotic treatments according to our interdisciplinary osteomyelitis board protocol. An infection was considered healed if a patient showed no signs of infection 1 year after termination of treatment. The patients were divided into an implant retention group and implant removal group, and their clinical and microbiological data were compared. RESULTS: Forty-six patients (27 women, 19 men) with an implant-associated infection of long-segment spinal instrumentation and mean age of 65.3±14.3 years (range, 22-89 years) were included. The mean length of the infected instrumentation was 6.5±2.4 segments (range, 4-13 segments). Implant retention was possible in 21 patients (45.7%); in the other 25 patients (54.3%), a part of or the entire implant required removal. Late infections were associated with implant removal, which correlated with longer hospitalization. Both groups showed high postoperative complication rates (50%) and high mortality rates (8.7%). In 39 patients (84.8%), infection was eradicated at a mean follow-up of 18.9±11.1 months (range, 12-60 months). Three patients (6.5%) were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-associated infections of long-segment spinal instrumentations are associated with high complication and mortality rates. Late infections are associated with implant removal. Treatment should be interdisciplinary including orthopedic surgeons and clinical infectiologists.
