Literature DB >> 27211792

Improving postoperative handover from anaesthetists to non-anaesthetists in a children's intensive care unit: the receiver's perception.

Teddy Suratos Fabila1, Hwan Ing Hee1, Rehena Sultana2, Pryseley Nkouibert Assam2, Anne Kiew3, Yoke Hwee Chan4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The efficiency of postoperative handover of paediatric patients to the children's intensive care unit (CICU) varies according to institutions, clinical setup and workflow. Reorganisation of handover flow based on findings from observational studies has been shown to improve the efficiency of information transfer. This study aimed to evaluate a new handover process based on recipients' perceptions, focusing on completeness and comprehensiveness of verbal communication, and the usability of a situation, background, assessment and recommendation (SBAR) form.
METHODS: This was a prospective interventional study conducted in the CICU of KK Women's and Children's Hospital, Singapore. It comprised four phases: (1) evaluation of the current handover process through an audit and opinion survey; (2) development of a new handover process based on the opinion survey and hospital personnel feedback; (3) implementation; and (4) evaluation of the new handover process. The new handover process was based on a PETS (pre-handover, equipment handover, timeout and sign out) protocol with a 'single traffic communication' flow and a new SBAR handover document. It included relevant patient information, and the options 'not applicable' and 'none', to increase compliance and reduce ambiguity.
RESULTS: Significantly more recipients indicated that the new SBAR form was the most important handover tool and provided more useful information. Recipients' perceptions indicated improvement in information sufficiency and clarity; reduction of omission errors; and fewer inconsistencies in patient descriptions in the new process.
CONCLUSION: Dual customisation of the handover process, PETS protocol and SBAR form is necessary to meet the workflow and information demands of the receiving team. Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  PETS protocol; SBAR form; handover process; opinion survey; paediatric

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27211792      PMCID: PMC4876414          DOI: 10.11622/smedj.2016090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Singapore Med J        ISSN: 0037-5675            Impact factor:   1.858


  18 in total

1.  Falling through the cracks: information breakdowns in critical care handoff communication.

Authors:  Joanna Abraham; Vickie Nguyen; Khalid F Almoosa; Bela Patel; Vimla L Patel
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2011-10-22

2.  Postoperative handover: problems, pitfalls, and prevention of error.

Authors:  Kamal Nagpal; Sonal Arora; May Abboudi; Amit Vats; Helen W Wong; Chhavi Manchanda; Charles Vincent; Krishna Moorthy
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Evaluation of a problem-specific SBAR tool to improve after-hours nurse-physician phone communication: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Erel Joffe; James P Turley; Kevin O Hwang; Todd R Johnson; Craig W Johnson; Elmer V Bernstam
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2013-11

4.  Collaborative communication: integrating SBAR to improve quality/patient safety outcomes.

Authors:  Cynthia D Beckett; Gayle Kipnis
Journal:  J Healthc Qual       Date:  2009 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.095

5.  Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods.

Authors:  R G Newcombe
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Strengthening handover communication in pediatric cardiac intensive care.

Authors:  Rona Craig; Linda Moxey; David Young; Neil S Spenceley; Mark G Davidson
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 2.556

7.  Quality of handover to the postanaesthesia care unit nurse.

Authors:  J S Anwari
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Using the ISBAR handover tool in junior medical officer handover: a study in an Australian tertiary hospital.

Authors:  James E Thompson; Luke W Collett; Marc J Langbart; Natalie J Purcell; Stephanie M Boyd; Yuigi Yuminaga; Gemma Ossolinski; Clarissa Susanto; Ann McCormack
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2011-02-10       Impact factor: 2.401

9.  Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality.

Authors:  Ken R Catchpole; Marc R de Leval; Angus McEwan; Nick Pigott; Martin J Elliott; Annette McQuillan; Carol MacDonald; Allan J Goldman
Journal:  Paediatr Anaesth       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.556

10.  Interprofessional handover and patient safety in anaesthesia: observational study of handovers in the recovery room.

Authors:  A F Smith; C Pope; D Goodwin; M Mort
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2008-06-13       Impact factor: 9.166

View more
  6 in total

1.  Operating Room-to-ICU Patient Handovers: A Multidisciplinary Human-Centered Design Approach.

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

Review 2.  Processes and tools to improve teamwork and communication in surgical settings: a narrative review.

Authors:  Sherry Espin; Alyssa Indar; Marketa Gross; Antoniette Labricciosa; Maryanne D'Arpino
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2020-06

3.  Completeness of the operating room to intensive care unit handover: a matter of time?

Authors:  Fabian Dusse; Johanna Pütz; Andreas Böhmer; Mark Schieren; Robin Joppich; Frank Wappler
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 2.217

4.  Impact of Structured Clinical Handover Protocol on Communication and Patient Satisfaction.

Authors:  Sayani Ghosh; Lakshmi Ramamoorthy; Biju Pottakat
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2021-03-03

5.  The satisfaction regarding handovers between ambulance and emergency department nurses: an observational study.

Authors:  Gijs Thomas Hovenkamp; Tycho Joan Olgers; Remco Robert Wortel; Milou Esmée Noltes; Bert Dercksen; Jan Cornelis Ter Maaten
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2018-09-10       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Evaluation of a Paper-Based Checklist versus an Electronic Handover Tool Based on the Situation Background Assessment Recommendation (SBAR) Concept in Patients after Surgery for Congenital Heart Disease.

Authors:  Carolin Rehm; Richard Zoller; Alina Schenk; Nicole Müller; Nadine Strassberger-Nerschbach; Sven Zenker; Ehrenfried Schindler
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 4.241

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.