Leveraging the Science of Teamwork to Sustain Handoff Improvements in Cardiovascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Improving the reliability of handoffs and care transitions is an important goal for many health care organizations. Increasing evidence shows that human-centered design and improved teamwork can lead to sustainable care transition improvements and better patient outcomes. This study was conducted within a cardiovascular service line at an academic medical center that performs more than 600 surgical procedures annually. A handoff process previously implemented at the center was poorly adopted. This work aimed to improve cardiovascular handoffs by applying human factors and the science of teamwork. METHODS: The study's quality improvement method used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles and participatory design and ergonomics to develop, implement, and assess a new handoff process and bundle. Trained observers analyzed video-recorded and live handoffs to assess teamwork, leadership, communication, coordination, cooperation, and sustainability of unit-defined handoff best practices. The intervention included a teamwork-focused redesign process and handoff bundle with supporting cognitive aids and assessment metrics. RESULTS: The study assessed 153 handoffs in multiple phases over 3 years (2016-2019). Quantitative and qualitative assessments of clinician (teamwork) and implementation outcomes were performed. Compared with the baseline, the observed handoffs demonstrated improved team leadership (p < 0.0001), communication (p < 0.0001), coordination (p = 0.0018), and cooperation (p = 0.007) following the deployment of the handoff bundle. Sustained improvements in fidelity to unit-defined handoff best practices continued 2.3 years post-deployment of the handoff bundle. CONCLUSION: Participatory design and ergonomics, combined with implementation and safety science principles, can provide an evidence-based approach for sustaining complex sociotechnical change and making handoffs more reliable.

Does standardisation improve post-operative anaesthesia handoffs? Meta-analyses on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes.

Anaesthesia handoffs are associated with negative outcomes (e.g. inappropriate treatments, post-operative complications, and in-hospital mortality). To minimise these adverse outcomes, federal bodies (e.g. Joint Commission) have mandated handoff standardisation. Due to the proliferation of handoff interventions and research, there is a need to meta-analyze anaesthesia handoffs. Therefore, we performed meta-analyses on the provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes related to post-operative anaesthesia handoff protocols. We meta-analysed 41 articles with post-operative anaesthesia handoffs that implemented a standardised handoff protocol. Compared to no standardisation, a standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoff changed provider outcomes with an OR of 4.03 (95% CI 3.20-5.08), patient outcomes with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.32-1.69), organisational outcomes with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI 2.51-7.19), handoff outcomes with an OR of 8.52 (95% CI 7.05-10.31). Our meta-analyses demonstrate that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs altered patient, provider, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Practitioner Summary: We conducted meta-analyses to assess the effects of post-operative anaesthesia handoff standardisation on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Our findings suggest that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs changed all listed outcomes in a positive direction. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as notable limitations in this literature base.

Dissecting Communication Barriers in Healthcare: A Path to Enhancing Communication Resiliency, Reliability, and Patient Safety.

ABSTRACT: Suboptimal exchange of information can have tragic consequences to patient's safety and survival. To this end, the Joint Commission lists communication error among the most common attributable causes of sentinel events. The risk management literature further supports this finding, ascribing communication error as a major factor (70%) in adverse events. Despite numerous strategies to improve patient safety, which are rooted in other high reliability industries (e.g., commercial aviation and naval aviation), communication remains an adaptive challenge that has proven difficult to overcome in the sociotechnical landscape that defines healthcare. Attributing a breakdown in information exchange to simply a generic "communication error" without further specification is ineffective and a gross oversimplification of a complex phenomenon. Further dissection of the communication error using root cause analysis, a failure modes and effects analysis, or through an event reporting system is needed. Generalizing rather than categorizing is an oversimplification that clouds clear pattern recognition and thereby prevents focused interventions to improve process reliability. We propose that being more precise when describing communication error is a valid mechanism to learn from these errors. We assert that by deconstructing communication in healthcare into its elemental parts, a more effective organizational learning strategy emerges to enable more focused patient safety improvement efforts. After defining the barriers to effective communication, we then map evidence-based recovery strategies and tools specific to each barrier as a tactic to enhance the reliability and validity of information exchange within healthcare.