Literature DB >> 20494690

Barriers and facilitators to nursing handoffs: Recommendations for redesign.

Catherine Amber Welsh1, Mindy E Flanagan, Patricia Ebright.   

Abstract

During a handoff, communication errors can lead to adverse events and suboptimal patient care. As a result, many institutions want to redesign their handoff processes, but have little specific guidance from the literature. We examined two approaches to nursing end-of-shift reports both taped and written, to identify specific factors limiting and facilitating such handoffs. Twenty nurses were interviewed using a semistructured format. They were asked about the current reporting process, the limitations, the elements that helped, and ideas for improvement. Analyses revealed that inadequate information, inconsistent quality, limited opportunity to ask questions, equipment malfunction, insufficient time to generate reports, and interruptions, limited handoffs. Facilitators were "pertinent" content, notes and space for notes, face-to-face interaction, and structured form/checklist. Recommendations for redesign are defining content pertinent to the unit, structuring handoffs so that information is received in a standard way, embedding an opportunity for questions into the process, planning for all 3 handoff subprocesses, and conducting peer evaluations and education. Copyright 2010 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20494690     DOI: 10.1016/j.outlook.2009.10.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nurs Outlook        ISSN: 0029-6554            Impact factor:   3.250


  10 in total

1.  The art of effective handoffs: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Sheila M Gephart
Journal:  Adv Neonatal Care       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.968

2.  Handoffs and Patient Safety: Grasping the Story and Painting a Full Picture.

Authors:  Patricia Birmingham; Martha D Buffum; Mary A Blegen; Audrey Lyndon
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 1.967

3.  The Hidden Lives of Nurses' Cognitive Artifacts.

Authors:  Jacquelyn W Blaz; Alexa K Doig; Kristin G Cloyes; Nancy Staggers
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2016-09-07       Impact factor: 2.342

Review 4.  Content overlap in nurse and physician handoff artifacts and the potential role of electronic health records: a systematic review.

Authors:  Sarah A Collins; Daniel M Stein; David K Vawdrey; Peter D Stetson; Suzanne Bakken
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2011-02-02       Impact factor: 6.317

5.  Validation of a handoff assessment tool: the Handoff CEX.

Authors:  Leora I Horwitz; Janet Dombroski; Terrence E Murphy; Jeanne M Farnan; Julie K Johnson; Vineet M Arora
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2012-06-07       Impact factor: 3.036

6.  The prescription handoff in community pharmacy: a study of its form and function.

Authors:  Michelle A Chui; Jamie A Stone
Journal:  J Am Pharm Assoc (2003)       Date:  2012

7.  Using *ORA, a network analysis tool, to assess the relationship of handoffs to quality and safety outcomes.

Authors:  Judith A Effken; Sheila M Gephart; Barbara B Brewer; Kathleen M Carley
Journal:  Comput Inform Nurs       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 1.985

8.  Using a knowledge translation framework to identify barriers and supports to effective nursing handover: A focus group study.

Authors:  Adriana Hada; Leanne Jack; Fiona Coyer
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2019-06-20

9.  Developing an Evidence-Based Nursing Handover Standard for a Multi-Site Public Hospital in Switzerland: Protocol for a Web-Based, Modified Delphi Study.

Authors:  Nadine Tacchini-Jacquier; Els de Waele; Peter Urben; Pierre Turini; Henk Verloo
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2020-01-08

10.  An Evidence-Based, Nursing Handover Standard for a Multisite Public Hospital in Switzerland: Web-Based, Modified Delphi Study.

Authors:  Nadine Tacchini-Jacquier; Hélène Hertzog; Kilian Ambord; Peter Urben; Pierre Turini; Henk Verloo
Journal:  JMIR Nurs       Date:  2020-06-15
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.