Context Patient handovers remain a significant patient safety challenge. Cognitive load theory (CLT) can be used to identify the cognitive mechanisms for handover errors. The ability to measure cognitive load types during handovers could drive the development of more effective curricula and protocols. No such measure currently exists. Methods The authors developed the Cognitive Load Inventory for Handoffs (CLIH) using a multi‐step process, including expert interviews to enhance content validity and talk‐alouds to optimise response process validity. The final version contained 28 items. From January to March 2019, we administered a cross‐sectional survey to 1807 residents and fellows from a large health care system in the USA. Participants completed the CLIH following a handover. Exploratory factor analysis of data from one‐third of respondents identified high‐performing items; confirmatory factor analysis of data from the remaining sample assessed model fit. Model fit was evaluated using the comparative fit index (CFI) (>0.90), Tucker‐Lewis index (TFI) (>0.80), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR) (<0.08) and root mean square of error of approximation (RMSEA) (<0.08). Results Participants included 693 trainees (38.4%) (231 in the exploratory study and 462 in the confirmatory study). Eleven items were removed during exploratory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis of the 16 remaining items (five for intrinsic load, seven for extraneous load and four for germane load) supported a three‐factor model and met criteria for good model fit: the CFI was 0.95, TFI was 0.93, RMSEA was 0.074 and SRMR was 0.07. The factor structure was comparable for gender and role. Intrinsic, extraneous and germane load scales had high internal consistency. With one exception, scale scores were associated, as hypothesised, with postgraduate level and clinical setting. Conclusions The CLIH measures three types of cognitive load during patient handovers. Evidencefor validity is provided for the CLIH's content, response process, internal structure and association with other variables. This instrument can be used to determine the relative drivers of cognitive load during handovers in order to optimize handover instruction and protocols.

Background: To meet coronavirus disease (COVID-19) demands in the spring of 2020, many intensive care (IC) units (ICUs) required help of redeployed personnel working outside their regular scope of practice, causing an expansion and change of staffing ratios. Objective: How did this composite alternative ICU workforce experience supervision, interprofessional collaboration, and quality and safety of care under the unprecedented clinical circumstances at the height of the first pandemic wave as lived experiences uniquely captured during the first peak of the pandemic? Methods: An international, cross-sectional survey was conducted among physicians, nurses, and allied personnel deployed or redeployed to ICUs in Utrecht, New York, and Dublin from April to May of 2020. Data were analyzed separately for the three sites. Quantitative data were treated for descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed thematically and combined for general interpretations. Results: On the basis of 234, 83, and 34 responses (response rates of 68%, 48%, and 41% in Utrecht, New York, and Dublin, respectively), we found that the amount of supervision and the quality and safety of care were perceived as being lower than usual but still acceptable. The working atmosphere was overwhelmingly felt to be collaborative and supportive. Where IC-certified nurse–to–patient ratios had decreased most (Utrecht), nurses voiced criticism about supervision and quality of care. Continuity within the work environment, team composition, and informal (“curbside”) consultations were critical mediators of success. Conclusion: In the exceptional circumstances encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic, many ICUs were managed by a composite workforce of IC-certified and redeployed personnel. Although supervision is critical for safe care, supervisory roles were not clearly related to the amount of prior ICU experience. Vital for satisfaction with the quality of care was the span of control for those who assumed supervisory roles (i.e., the ratio of certified to noncertified personnel). Stable teams that matched less experienced personnel with more experienced personnel; a strong, interprofessional, collaborative atmosphere; a robust culture of informal consultation; and judicious, more flexible use of rules and regulations proved to be essential.

Purpose To better prepare for potential future large-scale redeployments, this study examines quality of supervision and care as perceived by redeployed residents, fellows, and attendings during a COVID-19 surge. Method During April and May 2020, attendings, fellows, and residents redeployed at 2 teaching hospitals were invited to participate in a survey, which included questions on respondents’ prior experience; redeployed role; amount of supervision needed and received; and perceptions of quality of supervision, patient care, and interprofessional collaboration. Frequencies, means, and P values were calculated to compare perceptions by experience and trainee status. Narrative responses to 2 open-ended questions were independently coded; themes were constructed. Results Overall, 152 of 297 (51.2%) individuals responded, including 64 of 142 attendings (45.1%), 40 of 79 fellows (50.6%), and 48 of 76 residents (63.2%). Fellows and attendings, regardless of prior experience, perceived supervision as adequate. In contrast, experienced residents reported receiving more supervision than needed, while inexperienced residents reported receiving less supervision than needed and rated overall supervision as poor. Attendings, fellows, and experienced residents rated the overall quality of care as acceptable to good, whereas inexperienced residents perceived overall quality of care as worse to much worse, particularly when compared with baseline. Conclusions Narrative themes indicated that the quality of supervision and care was buffered by strong camaraderie, a culture of informal consultation, team composition (mixing experienced with inexperienced), and clinical decision aids. The markedly negative view of inexperienced residents suggests a higher risk for disillusionment, perhaps even moral injury, during future redeployments. Implications for planning are explored.