TY - JOUR
T1 - Improving emergency department medical clinical handover
T2 - Barriers at the bedside
AU - Marmor, Gerrard Oren
AU - Li, Michael Yonghong
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine
PY - 2017/6
Y1 - 2017/6
N2 - Objective: The present paper describes our experience of developing and piloting a best practice model of medical clinical handover. Secondary aims were to improve reliability of communication, identify negative effects on patient care and assess staff adherence and acceptance of the process. Methods: We described existing handover practice. We designed and implemented a process incorporating bedside handover, the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Requirements and Requests (ISBAR) tool and handover documentation. We audited the process and surveyed doctors before and after the intervention regarding their practice and preferences. Results: Existing handover practice was remote from the patient, neither standardised nor documented. The new process resulted in a median 87% (95% CI 70.4–92.1) of handovers in the presence of the patient. ISBAR elements were consistently communicated, median 100% (95% CI 91.8–100). Risk events were directly identified in a median 8.3% (95% CI 0.0–13.8) of bedside handovers. Handover documentation did not improve. FACEM and registrar perception that bedside handover improves patient care fell from 71%, 80% to 56%, 58%, respectively. Preference for bedside handover fell from 79% and 80%, respectively, to being evenly divided between bedside and centralised models; 80.9% of respondents reported that ISBAR improved communication. Conclusion: Bedside handover using ISBAR resulted in improved patient involvement, communication and a non-significant trend to improved patient safety. Despite a majority of doctors acknowledging these findings, preference remained for a centralised handover using ISBAR. Gaining staff acceptance of a process change is essential to its success. A barrier to acceptance could be that staff are time-poor. We suggest handover processes can be strengthened by adequate staffing and small, incremental improvements to existing models combined with auditing of outcomes.
AB - Objective: The present paper describes our experience of developing and piloting a best practice model of medical clinical handover. Secondary aims were to improve reliability of communication, identify negative effects on patient care and assess staff adherence and acceptance of the process. Methods: We described existing handover practice. We designed and implemented a process incorporating bedside handover, the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Requirements and Requests (ISBAR) tool and handover documentation. We audited the process and surveyed doctors before and after the intervention regarding their practice and preferences. Results: Existing handover practice was remote from the patient, neither standardised nor documented. The new process resulted in a median 87% (95% CI 70.4–92.1) of handovers in the presence of the patient. ISBAR elements were consistently communicated, median 100% (95% CI 91.8–100). Risk events were directly identified in a median 8.3% (95% CI 0.0–13.8) of bedside handovers. Handover documentation did not improve. FACEM and registrar perception that bedside handover improves patient care fell from 71%, 80% to 56%, 58%, respectively. Preference for bedside handover fell from 79% and 80%, respectively, to being evenly divided between bedside and centralised models; 80.9% of respondents reported that ISBAR improved communication. Conclusion: Bedside handover using ISBAR resulted in improved patient involvement, communication and a non-significant trend to improved patient safety. Despite a majority of doctors acknowledging these findings, preference remained for a centralised handover using ISBAR. Gaining staff acceptance of a process change is essential to its success. A barrier to acceptance could be that staff are time-poor. We suggest handover processes can be strengthened by adequate staffing and small, incremental improvements to existing models combined with auditing of outcomes.
KW - ED
KW - clinical handover
KW - communication
KW - quality improvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85016610689&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1742-6723.12768
DO - 10.1111/1742-6723.12768
M3 - Article
SN - 1742-6731
VL - 29
SP - 297
EP - 302
JO - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
JF - EMA - Emergency Medicine Australasia
IS - 3
ER -