Deficits in information transfer between anaesthesiologist and postanaesthesia care unit staff

Siddiqui, Naveed; Arzola, Cristian; Iqbal, Mirza; Sritharan, Kobika; Guerina, Laarni; Chung, Frances; Friedman, Zeev

doi:10.1097/eja.0b013e3283543e43

Cited by 49 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies have reported handovers after surgery in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) as being unstructured with omissions of important information about the patient (Anwari, 2002;Milby, Bohmer, Gerbershagen, Joppich, & Wappler, 2014;Nagpal, Arora, et al, 2010;Siddiqui et al, 2012;Smith, Pope, Goodwin, & Mort, 2008). Standardisation of the patient handover process through implementation of checklists and protocols has had a positive influence on the completeness of verbal reporting and practical tasks performed (Agarwal et al, 2012;Nagpal et al, 2013;Petrovic et al, 2015;Weinger et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative patient handovers—Variability in perceptions of quality: A qualitative focus group study

Reine

Rustøen

Ræder

et al. 2018

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health care providers need to be aware that postoperative handovers are affected by a set of factors related to internal (patient conditions, individual characteristics of clinicians involved and team composition) and external (timing and concurrency conflicts, handover structure) characteristics. These issues need to be acknowledged when procedures and routines for handover quality are designed, implemented and used.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Postoperative patient handovers—Variability in perceptions of quality: A qualitative focus group study

Reine

Rustøen

Ræder

et al. 2018

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inefficiencies of communication at clinical handover have been associated with irrelevant, missing or repetitive information, which can result in health professionals spending extensive periods attempting to retrieve relevant and correct information . In addition, ineffective handovers can cause major problems relating to lack of delivery of appropriate care and the possibility of misuse or poor utilisation of resources (Arora et al 2005, Siddiqui et al 2012). Previous survey studies of clinical handover have mainly focused on considering the perspectives of doctors (Fassett et al 2007, Karnwal et al 2008, Johner et al 2013, Lindsay et al 2013, Mazhar et al 2013, Kessler et al 2014 or nurses (O'Connell et al 2008, Street et al 2011.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspectives of clinical handover processes: a multi‐site survey across different health professionals

Manias

Geddes

Watson

et al. 2015

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and objectives. To examine the perspectives of health professionals of different disciplines about clinical handover. Background. Ineffective handovers can cause major problems relating to the lack of delivery of appropriate care. Design. A prospective, cross-sectional design was conducted using a survey about clinical handover practices. Methods. Health professionals employed in public metropolitan hospitals, public rural hospitals and community health centres were involved. The sample comprised doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, including physiotherapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians and midwives employed in Western Aus-tralia, New South Wales, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The survey sought information about health professionals' experiences about clinical handover; their perceived effectiveness of clinical handover; involvement of patients and family members; health professionals' ability to confirm understanding and to clarify clinical information; role modelling behaviour of health professionals ; training needs; adverse events encountered and possibilities for improvements. Results. In all, 707 health professionals participated (response rate = 14%). Represented professions were nursing (60%), medicine (22%) and allied health (18%). Many health professionals reported being aware of adverse events where they noticed poor handover was a significant cause. Differences existed between health professions in terms of how effectively they gave handover, perceived effectiveness of bedside handover vs. nonbedside handover, patient and family involvement in handover, respondents' confirmation of understanding handover from their perspective, their observation of senior health professionals giving feedback to junior health professionals, awareness of adverse events and severity of adverse events relating to poor handovers. What does this study contribute to the wider global clinical community? • No previous published survey research has involved an exploration of perceptions and experiences of health professionals of multiple disciplines in relation to clinical handover. In this exploratory study, we examined the perceptions and experiences of health professionals of different disciplines about clinical handover, comprising doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, including physiotherapists , social workers, dieticians, pharmacists and midwives. • Despite extensive measures available worldwide aimed at improving clinical handover processes, participating health professionals experienced adverse events relating to clinical handover in seven areas. These were: delays in treatment or procedure, or, prolonged treatment or procedure; lack of monitoring information given on clinical assessment, leading to patient deterioration; errors involving medications; patient falls; disruptive, aggressive behaviour and confused state leading to injury; putting patients at risk of infection and putting infants at risk. Greater levels of innovation are needed in training a...

show abstract

“…While there is no research in the published literature that specifically addresses doctor-nurse communication in the postoperative care of patients who have undergone MFTT, there are a small number of reports in the anesthesiology literature that have analyzed handoffs of patients from the intraoperative anesthesiology team to the recovery room nursing team. [7][8][9] Nagpal et al developed a Postoperative Hand-over Assessment Tool (PoHAT) that reliably identifies deficiencies in the current methods of postoperative handover, such as inadequate communication of anticipated postoperative problems and contingency plans if those problems were to arise. 4 Furthermore, Manser et al developed a comprehensive rating tool to assess the quality of handovers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Simple, Visually Oriented Communication System to Improve Postoperative Care Following Microvascular Free Tissue Transfer: Development, Results, and Implications

Henderson

Landford

Gardenier

et al. 2016

J reconstr Microsurg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Communication, particularly transmission of information between the surgical and nursing teams, has been identified as one of the most crucial determinants of patient outcomes. Nonetheless, transfer of information among and between the physician and nursing teams in the immediate postoperative period is often informal, verbal, and inconsistent. Methods An iterative process of multidisciplinary information gathering was undertaken to create a novel postoperative communication system (the "Pop-form"). Once developed, nurses were surveyed on multiple measures regarding the perceived likelihood that it would improve their ability to provide directed patient care. Data were quantified using a Likert scale (0-10), and statistically analyzed. Results The Pop-form records and transfers operative details, specific anatomic monitoring parameters, and senior physician contact information. Sixty-eight nurses completed surveys. The perceived usefulness of different components of the Pop-form system was as follows: 8.9 for the description of the procedure; 9.3 for the operative diagram; 9.4 for the monitoring details and parameters; and 9.4 for the direct contact information for the appropriate surgical team member. All respondents were in favor of widespread adoption of the Pop-form. Conclusion This uniform, visual communication system requires less than 1 minute to compose, yet formalizes and standardizes inter-team communication, and therefore shows promise for improving outcomes following microvascular free tissue transfer. We believe that this simple, innovative communication tool has the potential to be more broadly applied to many other health care settings.

show abstract

Deficits in information transfer between anaesthesiologist and postanaesthesia care unit staff

Cited by 49 publications

References 21 publications

Postoperative patient handovers—Variability in perceptions of quality: A qualitative focus group study

Postoperative patient handovers—Variability in perceptions of quality: A qualitative focus group study

Perspectives of clinical handover processes: a multi‐site survey across different health professionals

A Simple, Visually Oriented Communication System to Improve Postoperative Care Following Microvascular Free Tissue Transfer: Development, Results, and Implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About