Literature DB >> 19059181

Simple standardized patient handoff system that increases accuracy and completeness.

Jeffrey D Wayne1, Rajesh Tyagi, Gilles Reinhardt, Deborah Rooney, Gregory Makoul, Sunil Chopra, Debra A Darosa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) defines a "handoff" as a contemporaneous, interactive process of passing patient-specific information from one caregiver to another for the purpose of ensuring the continuity and safety of patient care. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive investigation on the determinants of an effective handoff management system. Specifically, we sought to address the following null hypotheses: There is no difference before and after implementation of a new, low-cost, low-tech process for surgery patient handoffs in accuracy of information, completeness, clarity of exact time of patient transfer, and number of tasks appropriately handed off.
METHODS: Baseline description of the handoff process was mapped from 3 direct observation sessions by an efficiency operations team. A focus group with residents, nurses, hospital administrators, and surgeons was held to identify concerns with the baseline process and to identify important features of a handoff system. These data were used to create an electronic survey for residents to indicate level of agreement with importance of various features and qualities of a handoff system. Longitudinal telephone surveys were performed with residents throughout and after the development period to determine the residents' perceptions of the completeness, accuracy, clarity of handoff time, and method of information transfer, as well as the frequency with which residents were expected to perform tasks that should have been performed by outgoing residents. An online survey was sent to residents before and after the new handoff system was implemented to study perceptions of information quality, process operations, clarity of responsibility, and satisfaction with the handoff process. Perceptions were rated on operationally defined scales. All instruments underwent expert review for content validity and clarity of instructions and scale definition appropriateness. A standardized, and partially automated, handoff form was then developed. After a 2-week pilot study, telephone surveys were repeated. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Student t-test, and multivariate analysis.
RESULTS: Compared with baseline, residents reported increased accuracy, as measured by the perceived number of inaccuracies found on sign-out sheets (p = 0.003). Completeness of the information on sign-out sheets also was improved (p = 0.015). Clarity as to the time of transfer of care from outgoing (day team) to incoming (night float) improved (p = 0.0001). The type of rotation (intensive care unit vs non-intensive care unit) did lead to an improvement (confidence interval< 99%). Across both shifts, the perceived number of inappropriate tasks transferred decreased significantly. Experience (months of training) and type of rotation did not affect these measures.
CONCLUSIONS: By simplifying and standardizing the handoff instrument, we demonstrated improvements in resident perceptions of accuracy, completeness, and number of tasks transferred. This low-cost, low-tech paradigm may be useful to others.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19059181     DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2008.06.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Educ        ISSN: 1878-7452            Impact factor:   2.891


  25 in total

1.  Sign-out snapshot: cross-sectional evaluation of written sign-outs among specialties.

Authors:  Amy R Schoenfeld; Mohammed Salim Al-Damluji; Leora I Horwitz
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-08-30       Impact factor: 7.035

Review 2.  A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools: implications for research and practice.

Authors:  Joanna Abraham; Thomas Kannampallil; Vimla L Patel
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2013-05-23       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Implementing standardized, inter-unit communication in an international setting: handoff of patients from emergency medicine to internal medicine.

Authors:  Kamna S Balhara; Susan M Peterson; Mohamed Moheb Elabd; Linda Regan; Xavier Anton; Basil Ali Al-Natour; Yu-Hsiang Hsieh; James Scheulen; Sarah A Stewart de Ramirez
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2017-02-03       Impact factor: 3.397

4.  Clinical handover: An audit from Australia.

Authors:  Heather Pascoe; Stephen D Gill; Andrew Hughes; Martin McCall-White
Journal:  Australas Med J       Date:  2014-09-30

5.  Ensuring patient safety in care transitions: an empirical evaluation of a Handoff Intervention Tool.

Authors:  Joanna Abraham; Thomas Kannampallil; Bela Patel; Khalid Almoosa; Vimla L Patel
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2012-11-03

6.  Information Needs Assessment for a Medicine Ward-Focused Rounding Dashboard.

Authors:  Christopher A Aakre; Rajeev Chaudhry; Brian W Pickering; Vitaly Herasevich
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2016-06-15       Impact factor: 4.460

7.  Assessing written communication during interhospital transfers of emergency general surgery patients.

Authors:  Felicity N R Harl; Megan C Saucke; Caprice C Greenberg; Angela M Ingraham
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 2.192

8.  Development of an orthopedic surgery trauma patient handover checklist.

Authors:  Justin LeBlanc; Tyrone Donnon; Carol Hutchison; Paul Duffy
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Effect of a systems intervention on the quality and safety of patient handoffs in an internal medicine residency program.

Authors:  Kelly L Graham; Edward R Marcantonio; Grace C Huang; Julius Yang; Roger B Davis; C Christopher Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Chart biopsy: an emerging medical practice enabled by electronic health records and its impacts on emergency department-inpatient admission handoffs.

Authors:  Brian Hilligoss; Kai Zheng
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-09-08       Impact factor: 4.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.