BackgroundCross-border healthcare is complex, increasingly frequent and causes potential risks for patient safety. In this context, cross-border handovers or the transfer of patients from one country to another deserves particular attention. Although general handover has been the topic of extensive research, little is known about the challenges of handover across national borders, especially as perceived by stakeholders. In this study, we aimed to gain insight into healthcare professionals’ perspectives on cross-border handover and ways to support this.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with healthcare professionals (physicians, nurses, paramedics and administrative staff) in a European border region to investigate their perspectives on cross-border handover. The interviews were aimed to investigate settings of acute and planned handover. Informed by the theory of planned behaviour (TPB), interviews focused on participant perspectives. We summarised all interviews and inductively identified healthcare professionals’ perspectives. We used elements of the TPB as sensitising concepts.ResultsForty-three healthcare professionals participated. Although respondents had neutral to positive attitudes, they often did not know very well what was expected of them or what influence they could have on improving cross-border handover. Challenges covered five themes: information transfer, language barriers, task division and education, policy and financial structures and cultural differences. To overcome these challenges, we proposed strategies such as providing tools and protocols, discussing and formalising collaboration, and organising opportunities to meet and get to know each other.ConclusionHealthcare professionals involved in cross-border handovers face specific challenges. It is necessary to take measures to come to a shared understanding while paying special attention to the above-mentioned challenges. Meeting in person around meaningful activities (eg, training and case discussions) can facilitate sharing ideas and community building.
Introduction In European border regions, healthcare providers join forces to make full use of the potential of healthcare. Trainees need to be aware of the challenges and opportunities of cross-border healthcare. To increase such awareness, a workshop was designed, implemented and evaluated. The workshop was entitled ‘Creating cross-border collaborators’ and combined elements of contextual, collaborative and reflective learning. The aim of the study was to understand how this workshop enhanced trainees’ awareness of challenges and opportunities of cross-border healthcare. Methods Using a mixed-methods approach, focus-group interviews (QUAL) were held with trainees ( N = 16) and trainees ( N = 13) completed a survey (QUAN) about their workshop experiences. The workshop was held three times for three different groups of trainees. Results Quantitative analysis (of surveys) demonstrated increased self-reported awareness of cross-border healthcare. All learning principles contributed to this awareness, however reflective learning slightly less. Qualitative analysis (of focus-group interviews) unearthed the following four themes: (1) Attention to cross-border healthcare fostered awareness of its complexity; (2) real-life examples stimulated recognition of challenges and opportunities; (3) discussions in interdisciplinary and international groups helped to see different perspectives; and (4) reflection made trainees think about their own role and perspective. Quantitative and qualitative data are strongly cohered. Conclusion According to participating trainees, a workshop with elements of contextual, collaborative and reflective learning did improve trainee awareness of cross-border healthcare. This study highlights that theoretical insights into learning can and should inform the design and evaluation of workshops.
Introduction While the popularity of international care is rising, the complexity of international care compromises patient safety. To identify risks and propose solutions to improve international care, this study explores experiences of healthcare workers with international handovers in a European border region. Methods A cross-sectional survey design was used to reach out to 3000 healthcare workers, working for hospitals or emergency services in three neighboring countries in the Meuse-Rhine Euregion. In total, 846 healthcare workers completed the survey with 35 closed- and open-ended questions about experiences with international patient handover. Results One-third of respondents had been involved in international handover in the previous month. The handovers occurred in planned and acute care settings and were supported by numerous, yet varying standardized procedures. Healthcare workers were trained for this in some, but not all settings. Respondents mentioned 408 risks and proposed 373 solutions, which were inductively analyzed. Six identified themes classify the level on which risks and accompanying solutions can be found: awareness, professional competencies, communication between professionals, loss of information, facilities and support, and organizational structure. Discussion This study gives insight in international patient handovers in a European border region. Among the biggest risks experienced are procedural differences, sharing patient information, unfamiliarity with foreign healthcare systems, and not knowing roles and responsibilities of peers working across the border. Standardization of procedures, harmonization of systems, and the possibility for healthcare workers to get to know each other will contribute to reach common ground and move towards optimized and patient-safer cross-border care.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.