Lisa M McElroy1, Kathryn R Macapagal2, Kelly M Collins3, Michael M Abecassis4, Jane L Holl5, Daniela P Ladner5, Elisa J Gordon5. 1. Center for Healthcare Studies and Center for Education in Health Sciences, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: lisa.mcelroy@northwestern.edu. 2. Center for Healthcare Studies and Center for Education in Health Sciences, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Section of Transplantation, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Center for Healthcare Studies and Center for Education in Health Sciences, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA; Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative, Comprehensive Transplant Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs are known sources of medical error, yet little is known about the relationship between process failures and patient harm. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with clinicians involved in the OR-to-ICU handoff to characterize the relationship between handoff process failures and patient harm. Qualitative analysis was used to inductively identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of 38 interviews were conducted. Dominant themes included early communication from the OR to the ICU, team member participation in the handoff, and relationships between clinicians; clinician perspectives varied depending substantially on role within the team. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that ambiguous roles and conflicting expectations of team members during the OR-to-ICU handoff can increase risk of patient harm. Future studies should investigate early postoperative ICU care as outcome markers of handoff quality and the effect of interprofessional education on clinician adherence to interventions.
BACKGROUND: Operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs are known sources of medical error, yet little is known about the relationship between process failures and patient harm. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with clinicians involved in the OR-to-ICU handoff to characterize the relationship between handoff process failures and patient harm. Qualitative analysis was used to inductively identify key themes. RESULTS: A total of 38 interviews were conducted. Dominant themes included early communication from the OR to the ICU, team member participation in the handoff, and relationships between clinicians; clinician perspectives varied depending substantially on role within the team. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that ambiguous roles and conflicting expectations of team members during the OR-to-ICU handoff can increase risk of patient harm. Future studies should investigate early postoperative ICU care as outcome markers of handoff quality and the effect of interprofessional education on clinician adherence to interventions.
Authors: Noa Segall; Alberto S Bonifacio; Rebecca A Schroeder; Atilio Barbeito; Dawn Rogers; Deirdre K Thornlow; James Emery; Sally Kellum; Melanie C Wright; Jonathan B Mark Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Michelle A Petrovic; Hanan Aboumatar; William A Baumgartner; John A Ulatowski; Jenny Moyer; Tracy Y Chang; Melissa S Camp; Janet Kowalski; Carolyn M Senger; Elizabeth A Martinez Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Brian F Joy; Emily Elliott; Courtney Hardy; Christine Sullivan; Carl L Backer; Jason M Kane Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Jeffrey M Rothschild; Christopher P Landrigan; John W Cronin; Rainu Kaushal; Steven W Lockley; Elisabeth Burdick; Peter H Stone; Craig M Lilly; Joel T Katz; Charles A Czeisler; David W Bates Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maartje Lg de Vos; Sabine N van der Veer; Wilco C Graafmans; Nicolette F de Keizer; Kitty J Jager; Gert P Westert; Peter Hj van der Voort Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Noa Segall; Alberto S Bonifacio; Atilio Barbeito; Rebecca A Schroeder; Sharon R Perfect; Melanie C Wright; James D Emery; B Zane Atkins; Jeffrey M Taekman; Jonathan B Mark Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2016-09
Authors: Abigail R Wooldridge; Pascale Carayon; Peter Hoonakker; Bat-Zion Hose; Benjamin Eithun; Thomas Brazelton; Joshua Ross; Jonathan E Kohler; Michelle M Kelly; Shannon M Dean; Deborah Rusy; Ayse P Gurses Journal: Appl Ergon Date: 2020-02-12 Impact factor: 3.661
Authors: Meghan B Lane-Fall; Athena Christakos; Gina C Russell; Bat-Zion Hose; Elizabeth D Dauer; Philip E Greilich; Bommy Hong Mershon; Christopher P Potestio; Erin W Pukenas; John R Kimberly; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Rebecca L Trotta; Rinad S Beidas; Ellen J Bass Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 7.327