David P Johnson1, Kanecia Zimmerman2, Betty Staples3, Kathleen A McGann3, Karen Frush3, David A Turner2. 1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Hospital Medicine, Monroe Carell Jr. Children's Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville, Tennessee; and david.p.johnson.1@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Department of Pediatrics, and Division of Pediatric Critical Care, Duke Children's Hospital, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Pediatrics, and.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Teaching and evaluation of handovers are important requirements of graduate medical education (GME), but well-defined and effective methods have not been clearly established. Case-based computer simulations provide potential methods to teach, evaluate, and practice handovers. METHODS: Case-based computer simulation modules were developed. In these modules, trainees care for a virtual patient in a time-lapsed session, followed by real-time synthesis and handover of the clinical information to a partner who uses this information to continue caring for the same patient in a simulated night scenario, with an observer tallying included handover components. The process culminates with evaluator feedback and structured handover education. Surveys were used before and after module implementation to allow the interns to rate the quality of handover provided and record rapid responses and transfers to the ICU. RESULTS: Fifty-two pediatric and medicine/pediatric residents from 2 institutions participated in the modules. "Anticipatory guidance" elements of the handover were the most frequently excluded (missing at least 1 component in 77% of module handovers). There were no significant differences in the proportion of nights with rapid response calls (7.24% vs 12.79%, P=.052) or transfers to the ICU (7.76% vs 11.27%, P=.21) before and after module implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Case-based, computer-simulation modules are an easily implemented and generalizable mechanism for handover education and assessment. Although significant improvements in patient safety outcomes were not seen as a result of the educational module alone, novel techniques of this nature may supplement handover bundles that have been demonstrated to improve patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: Teaching and evaluation of handovers are important requirements of graduate medical education (GME), but well-defined and effective methods have not been clearly established. Case-based computer simulations provide potential methods to teach, evaluate, and practice handovers. METHODS: Case-based computer simulation modules were developed. In these modules, trainees care for a virtual patient in a time-lapsed session, followed by real-time synthesis and handover of the clinical information to a partner who uses this information to continue caring for the same patient in a simulated night scenario, with an observer tallying included handover components. The process culminates with evaluator feedback and structured handover education. Surveys were used before and after module implementation to allow the interns to rate the quality of handover provided and record rapid responses and transfers to the ICU. RESULTS: Fifty-two pediatric and medicine/pediatric residents from 2 institutions participated in the modules. "Anticipatory guidance" elements of the handover were the most frequently excluded (missing at least 1 component in 77% of module handovers). There were no significant differences in the proportion of nights with rapid response calls (7.24% vs 12.79%, P=.052) or transfers to the ICU (7.76% vs 11.27%, P=.21) before and after module implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Case-based, computer-simulation modules are an easily implemented and generalizable mechanism for handover education and assessment. Although significant improvements in patient safety outcomes were not seen as a result of the educational module alone, novel techniques of this nature may supplement handover bundles that have been demonstrated to improve patient safety.
Authors: Amy J Starmer; Nancy D Spector; Rajendu Srivastava; April D Allen; Christopher P Landrigan; Theodore C Sectish Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-01-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Gregory M Bump; Franziska Jovin; Lindsay Destefano; Amanda Kirlin; Andrew Moul; Kelly Murray; Deborah Simak; D Michael Elnicki Journal: Teach Learn Med Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.414
Authors: Eugene S Chu; Mark Reid; Tara Schulz; Marisha Burden; Diana Mancini; Amrut V Ambardekar; Angela Keniston; Richard K Albert Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Amy J Starmer; Theodore C Sectish; Dennis W Simon; Carol Keohane; Maireade E McSweeney; Erica Y Chung; Catherine S Yoon; Stuart R Lipsitz; Ari J Wassner; Marvin B Harper; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Penny Tam; Aman P Nijjar; Mark Fok; Chris Little; Alexandra Shingina; Jesse Bittman; Rashmi Raghavan; Nadia A Khan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 3.240