OBJECTIVE: To audit the quality and safety of the current doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. If deficient, to implement a validated handover tool to improve the quality of the handover process. METHODS: In Cycle 1 we observed the verbal handover and reviewed the written handover information transferred for 50 consecutive patients in St George's Hospital Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. For each patient's handover, we assessed whether each section of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool was used on a scale of 0-2. Zero if no information in that category was transferred, one if the information was partially transferred and two if all relevant information was transferred. Each patient's handover received a score from 0 to 10 and thus, each cycle a total score of 0-500. Following the implementation of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations handover tool in our Intensive Care Unit in Cycle 2, we re-observed the handover process for another 50 consecutive patients hence, completing the audit cycle. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the total scores from Cycle 1 and 2 (263/500 versus 457/500, p < 0.001). The median handover score for Cycle 1 was 5/10 (interquartile range 4-6). The median handover score for Cycle 2 was 9/10 (interquartile range 9-10). Patient handover scores increased significantly between Cycle 1 and 2, U = 13.5, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a standardised handover template (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool) has improved the quality and safety of the doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Intensive Care Unit.
OBJECTIVE: To audit the quality and safety of the current doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. If deficient, to implement a validated handover tool to improve the quality of the handover process. METHODS: In Cycle 1 we observed the verbal handover and reviewed the written handover information transferred for 50 consecutive patients in St George's Hospital Cardiothoracic Intensive Care Unit. For each patient's handover, we assessed whether each section of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool was used on a scale of 0-2. Zero if no information in that category was transferred, one if the information was partially transferred and two if all relevant information was transferred. Each patient's handover received a score from 0 to 10 and thus, each cycle a total score of 0-500. Following the implementation of the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations handover tool in our Intensive Care Unit in Cycle 2, we re-observed the handover process for another 50 consecutive patients hence, completing the audit cycle. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between the total scores from Cycle 1 and 2 (263/500 versus 457/500, p < 0.001). The median handover score for Cycle 1 was 5/10 (interquartile range 4-6). The median handover score for Cycle 2 was 9/10 (interquartile range 9-10). Patient handover scores increased significantly between Cycle 1 and 2, U = 13.5, p < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of a standardised handover template (Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations tool) has improved the quality and safety of the doctor-to-doctor handover of patient information in our Intensive Care Unit.
Entities:
Keywords:
Handover; information transfer; patient safety; quality improvement
Authors: Alexander J Maxwell; Matthew Crocker; Timothy L Jones; Dolin Bhagawati; Marios C Papadopoulos; B Anthony Bell Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2010-04-06 Impact factor: 2.216
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
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
Authors: Fabian Dusse; Johanna Pütz; Andreas Böhmer; Mark Schieren; Robin Joppich; Frank Wappler Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2021-02-05 Impact factor: 2.217