Camilla B Pimentel1,2, A Lynn Snow3,4, Sarah L Carnes5, Nishant R Shah6,7, Julia R Loup3,4, Tatiana M Vallejo-Luces8, Caroline Madrigal9, Christine W Hartmann10,11. 1. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and the New England Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA. Camilla.Pimentel@va.gov. 2. Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Camilla.Pimentel@va.gov. 3. Alabama Research Institute on Aging and the Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. 4. Tuscaloosa Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA. 5. VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA. 6. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Brown University Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, USA. 7. Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, USA. 8. Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 9. Center of Innovation in Long Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, USA. 10. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research and the New England Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, VA Bedford Healthcare System, Bedford, MA, USA. 11. Department of Public Health, Zuckerberg College of Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Brief, stand-up meetings known as huddles may improve clinical care, but knowledge about huddle implementation and effectiveness at the frontlines is fragmented and setting specific. This work provides a comprehensive overview of huddles used in diverse health care settings, examines the empirical support for huddle effectiveness, and identifies knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. METHODS: A scoping review was completed by searching the databases PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and OvidSP for studies published in English from inception to May 31, 2019. Eligible studies described huddles that (1) took place in a clinical or medical setting providing health care patient services, (2) included frontline staff members, (3) were used to improve care quality, and (4) were studied empirically. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; seven reviewers independently abstracted data from full texts. RESULTS: Of 2,185 identified studies, 158 met inclusion criteria. The majority (67.7%) of studies described huddles used to improve team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Huddles positively impacted team process outcomes in 67.7% of studies, including improvements in efficiency, process-based functioning, and communication across clinical roles (64.4%); situational awareness and staff perceptions of safety and safety climate (44.6%); and staff satisfaction and engagement (29.7%). Almost half of studies (44.3%) reported huddles positively impacting clinical care outcomes such as patients receiving timely and/or evidence-based assessments and care (31.4%); decreased medical errors and adverse drug events (24.3%); and decreased rates of other negative outcomes (20.0%). DISCUSSION: Huddles involving frontline staff are an increasingly prevalent practice across diverse health care settings. Huddles are generally interdisciplinary and aimed at improving team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Data from the scoping review point to the effectiveness of huddles at improving work and team process outcomes and indicate the positive impact of huddles can extend beyond processes to include improvements in clinical outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework on 18 January 2019 ( https://osf.io/bdj2x/ ).
BACKGROUND: Brief, stand-up meetings known as huddles may improve clinical care, but knowledge about huddle implementation and effectiveness at the frontlines is fragmented and setting specific. This work provides a comprehensive overview of huddles used in diverse health care settings, examines the empirical support for huddle effectiveness, and identifies knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research. METHODS: A scoping review was completed by searching the databases PubMed, EBSCOhost, ProQuest, and OvidSP for studies published in English from inception to May 31, 2019. Eligible studies described huddles that (1) took place in a clinical or medical setting providing health care patient services, (2) included frontline staff members, (3) were used to improve care quality, and (4) were studied empirically. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts; seven reviewers independently abstracted data from full texts. RESULTS: Of 2,185 identified studies, 158 met inclusion criteria. The majority (67.7%) of studies described huddles used to improve team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Huddles positively impacted team process outcomes in 67.7% of studies, including improvements in efficiency, process-based functioning, and communication across clinical roles (64.4%); situational awareness and staff perceptions of safety and safety climate (44.6%); and staff satisfaction and engagement (29.7%). Almost half of studies (44.3%) reported huddles positively impacting clinical care outcomes such as patients receiving timely and/or evidence-based assessments and care (31.4%); decreased medical errors and adverse drug events (24.3%); and decreased rates of other negative outcomes (20.0%). DISCUSSION: Huddles involving frontline staff are an increasingly prevalent practice across diverse health care settings. Huddles are generally interdisciplinary and aimed at improving team communication, collaboration, and/or coordination. Data from the scoping review point to the effectiveness of huddles at improving work and team process outcomes and indicate the positive impact of huddles can extend beyond processes to include improvements in clinical outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: This scoping review was registered with the Open Science Framework on 18 January 2019 ( https://osf.io/bdj2x/ ).
Authors: Julia Neily; Peter D Mills; Yinong Young-Xu; Brian T Carney; Priscilla West; David H Berger; Lisa M Mazzia; Douglas E Paull; James P Bagian Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David Lisbon; Dennis Allin; Carol Cleek; Lori Roop; Michael Brimacombe; Courtney Downes; Susan K Pingleton Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: S Shivananda; S Gupta; S Thomas; L Babb; C-L Meyer; A Symington; B Paes; G K Suresh Journal: J Perinatol Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 2.521
Authors: Julia Neily; Peter D Mills; Pamela Lee; Brian Carney; Priscilla West; Katherine Percarpio; Lisa Mazzia; Douglas E Paull; James P Bagian Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-08
Authors: Alexander F van der Sluijs; Eline R van Slobbe-Bijlsma; Astrid Goossens; Alexander Pj Vlaar; Dave A Dongelmans Journal: SAGE Open Med Date: 2019-01-02
Authors: Greg Ogrinc; Louise Davies; Daisy Goodman; Paul Batalden; Frank Davidoff; David Stevens Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2015-09-14 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Camila Pimentel; Casin Le; Marisel R Tuttobene; Tomas Subils; Krisztina M Papp-Wallace; Robert A Bonomo; Marcelo E Tolmasky; Maria Soledad Ramirez Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) Date: 2021-07-08