Pablo Perez D'Empaire1, Andre Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral2,3. 1. Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontário, Canadá. 2. Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre - Toronto, Ontário, Canadá. 3. Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto - Toronto, Ontário, Canadá.
Handover, the act of transferring information and accountability between clinicians,
is recognized by the World Health Organization( and critical care societies( as one of the key elements of quality and safety.
With changes in residents' working hours in the past years in the United
States,( the number of
handovers increased considerably, and a vast body of literature now exists for both
critical care and postoperative patients.( Poor communication during handovers is associated with an
increase in medical errors and adverse events,( and several tools
and interventions exist to improve communication and reduce medical
errors.( Critical care
units and postoperative recovery units are strategic areas where patients are more
vulnerable to communication breakdowns, given the complexity of these areas and the
multiple team transitions that occur during patient care.(
WHAT IS A HANDOVER?
The current literature provides different definitions of handovers depending on the
scope of the area or the type of communication; however, the definition by Cohen et
al. in a recent literature review( ("the exchange between health professionals of information
about a patient, accompanying either a transfer of control over, or of
responsibility for, the patient") captures the essential elements of communication
during the transitions of care for patients. This means that a handover can occur
when patients are changing teams (or control, for example, when they come into the
intensive care unit [ICU] from the operating room) or when shifts are changing
(responsibility is changing, for example, when the night team takes over for
patients in the ICU).
CHALLENGES TO HANDOVERS IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS
Critically illpatients undergo multiple changes in teams during their care, with
problems in communication at every step of these transitions, including admission
from the operating room,( ICU
stay,( ICU transfers to
the ward and transfers between different ICUs.( These can be errors of omission or corruption of
information,( impact
clinical decision making( and
discharge planning.(Human factors and organizational aspects of the environment play an important role in
facilitating or mitigating these errors. For example, errors of omission may occur
due to distractions during handovers (such as other team members asking for
directions on non-urgent aspects of care), disorganized information (such as
critical blood work or vital signs that are not readily available for discussion),
and reliance on memory.( The
corruption of information may occur due to poor construction of the message (e.g.,
use of jargon, inaccurate word choice) or due to cognitive biases, such as when
patients have an unclear diagnosis and are described as having an established
diagnosis during handover.In many situations, the conversation on handovers is unidirectional, in which the
person handing over the patient describes the clinical situation and the current
treatments. However, in complex patients with many diagnoses and clinical
uncertainties, simple one-way communication may not be enough. Even with the
accurate information and proper language for an adequate handover process, it may
not be possible to provide a full comprehension of the most important and uncertain
aspects of a patient's clinical course. In these situations, two-way communication
with both parties, discussing the diagnosis and treatments from different
perspectives, allows for a new construction of the clinical scenario, which may have
a positive impact on the communication process.( In a recent study of cross-covering nighttime clinicians,
when patients were cared for at night by an incoming clinician that did not
participate in their care during the day, they were more likely to have more
diagnostic tests and changes in treatment overnight, and they had a lower mortality.
These data suggest that the incoming clinician's different perspective may have
helped them identify the problems that were overlooked by the daytime
clinicians.( Once we
acknowledge this crucial function of re-thinking about the patient during handovers,
it is clear that we need to focus not only on what information is communicated but
also on the interactions between clinicians during a handover.In the ICU setting, there are several barriers that impact the effectiveness and
safety of the handover (Table 1).
Table 1
Barriers to effective and safe handovers
Standardization
Lack of formal handover education
Staff resistant to changes in handover process Lack of
handover protocols Lack of electronic tools to support
handover
Organizational
Multitasking during handover
Multiple interruptions and distractions Time
constraints Noisy location
Communication skills
Omissions, errors, or
misunderstandings Language barriers Social
interactions occurring during handover Incorrect information
recall Hierarchical culture that discourages
questions Differences in clinical knowledge
Clinical factors
Patients with multiple medical
problems Large number of patients Changes in patient
status preceding handover
Barriers to effective and safe handovers
WHAT CAN WE DO TO IMPROVE HANDOVERS?
Memory aids
The most basic and efficient level of improvement is to use memory aids. These
can take many forms, from a simple note-taking process during handovers to
"low-tech" solutions, such as electronic documents that exist locally in the ICU
computer, to more complex handover systems that integrate with electronic
medical records. The basic tenet is to avoid reliance on memory. A commonly used
method is to develop a handover-specific form; in a recent systematic review,
this was the most commonly used intervention;( however, the quality of the evidence of these
studies is limited.
Standardization of handovers
Although strategies with mnemonics have shown mostly conflicting results or were
described in studies of poor quality,( they continue to proliferate in the handover
literature; a systematic review of handover mnemonics resulted in the
identification of twenty-four different mnemonics up to 2009.( The best evidence comes from
a recent before-after study of a new mnemonic (I-PASS), where the use of
standardization resulted in a 23% decrease in medical errors in a pediatric
population.( Care
must be taken, however, to adopt this approach, as the implementation was very
complex, including several technological components, which limits the
generalizability of the tool. In spite of the limited evidence to support
standardization, teams should be encouraged to consider standardizing elements
of handover, paying special attention to commonly missed and important
information in their own settings.
Handover protocols
Many institutions have focused on developing structured handover protocols to
minimize errors, borrowing strategies from the automotive industry, such as
Six-Sigma, or from Formula-One to improve handovers to the ICU;( both strategies have the
standardization of the processes in common, including clear roles for
participants, task sequences, anticipation of events, checklists and
handover-specific forms. These structured moments of handover are different from
standardization as they focus not only on which elements need to be discussed
but also on when and where handovers occur, who should be present, and what is
the sequence of presentation, and they frequently incorporate elements that
enable two-way communication in their format.
CONCLUSIONS
Handovers are an important moment in patient safety with potential to improve quality
and efficiency of care. Understanding that handovers should not be a one-way
communication is crucial when caring for complex patients, such as critically illpatients. Clinicians and intensive care unit directors should consider many simple
strategies that can improve communication and are unlikely to cause harm, despite
limited evidence.
Authors: A Rhodes; R P Moreno; E Azoulay; M Capuzzo; J D Chiche; J Eddleston; R Endacott; P Ferdinande; H Flaatten; B Guidet; R Kuhlen; C León-Gil; M C Martin Delgado; P G Metnitz; M Soares; C L Sprung; J F Timsit; A Valentin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 17.440
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: 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
Authors: Amy J Starmer; Nancy D Spector; Rajendu Srivastava; Daniel C West; Glenn Rosenbluth; April D Allen; Elizabeth L Noble; Lisa L Tse; Anuj K Dalal; Carol A Keohane; Stuart R Lipsitz; Jeffrey M Rothschild; Matthew F Wien; Catherine S Yoon; Katherine R Zigmont; Karen M Wilson; Jennifer K O'Toole; Lauren G Solan; Megan Aylor; Zia Bismilla; Maitreya Coffey; Sanjay Mahant; Rebecca L Blankenburg; Lauren A Destino; Jennifer L Everhart; Shilpa J Patel; James F Bale; Jaime B Spackman; Adam T Stevenson; Sharon Calaman; F Sessions Cole; Dorene F Balmer; Jennifer H Hepps; Joseph O Lopreiato; Clifton E Yu; Theodore C Sectish; Christopher P Landrigan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 91.245
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