Literature DB >> 28977251

What every intensivist should know about handovers in the intensive care unit.

Pablo Perez D'Empaire1, Andre Carlos Kajdacsy-Balla Amaral2,3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28977251      PMCID: PMC5496744          DOI: 10.5935/0103-507X.20170020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Rev Bras Ter Intensiva        ISSN: 0103-507X


× No keyword cloud information.

BACKGROUND

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 ill patients 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

StandardizationLack of formal handover education Staff resistant to changes in handover process Lack of handover protocols Lack of electronic tools to support handover
OrganizationalMultitasking during handover Multiple interruptions and distractions Time constraints Noisy location
Communication skillsOmissions, errors, or misunderstandings Language barriers Social interactions occurring during handover Incorrect information recall Hierarchical culture that discourages questions Differences in clinical knowledge
Clinical factorsPatients 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 ill patients. Clinicians and intensive care unit directors should consider many simple strategies that can improve communication and are unlikely to cause harm, despite limited evidence.
  16 in total

1.  Admission handoff communications: clinician's shared understanding of patient severity of illness and problems.

Authors:  Melissa L Brannen; Kenzie A Cameron; Mark Adler; Denise Goodman; Jane L Holl
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 2.844

2.  Prospectively defined indicators to improve the safety and quality of care for critically ill patients: a report from the Task Force on Safety and Quality of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).

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

Review 3.  Can we make postoperative patient handovers safer? A systematic review of the literature.

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

Review 4.  The published literature on handoffs in hospitals: deficiencies identified in an extensive review.

Authors:  Michael D Cohen; P Brian Hilligoss
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2010-04-08

5.  The new recommendations on duty hours from the ACGME Task Force.

Authors:  Thomas J Nasca; Susan H Day; E Stephen Amis
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-06-23       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  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

7.  A prospective observational study of physician handoff for intensive-care-unit-to-ward patient transfers.

Authors:  Pin Li; Henry Thomas Stelfox; William Amin Ghali
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.965

8.  Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

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

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.  Deficits in information transfer between anaesthesiologist and postanaesthesia care unit staff: an analysis of patient handover.

Authors:  Naveed Siddiqui; Cristian Arzola; Mirza Iqbal; Kobika Sritharan; Laarni Guerina; Frances Chung; Zeev Friedman
Journal:  Eur J Anaesthesiol       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 4.330

View more
  1 in total

1.  Adverse events experienced with intrahospital transfer of critically ill patients: A national survey.

Authors:  Mohamad-Hani Temsah; Fahad Al-Sohime; Ali Alhaboob; Ayman Al-Eyadhy; Fadi Aljamaan; Gamal Hasan; Salma Ali; Ahmed Ashri; Assalh Ali Nahass; Rana Al-Barrak; Omar Temsah; Khalid Alhasan; Amr A Jamal
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 1.889

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.