Dataset Information

Improving clinical handover between intensive care unit and general ward professionals at intensive care unit discharge.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To systematically review and evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in order to improve the safety and efficiency of patient handover between intensive care unit (ICU) and general ward healthcare professionals at ICU discharge.

Methods

PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for intervention studies with the aim to improve clinical handover between ICU and general ward healthcare professionals that had been published up to and including June 2013. The methods for article inclusion and data analysis were pre-specified and aligned with recommendations outlined in the PRISMA guideline. Two reviewers independently extracted data (study purpose, setting, population, method of sampling, sample size, intervention characteristics, outcome, and implementation activities) and assessed the quality of the included studies.

Results

From the 6,591 citations initially extracted from the six databases, we included 11 studies in this review. Of these, six (55 %) reported statistically significant effects. Effective interventions included liaison nurses to improve communication and coordination of care and forms to facilitate timely, complete and accurate handover information. Effective interventions resulted in improved continuity of care (e.g., reduced discharge delay) and in reduced adverse events. Inconsistent effects were observed for use of care, namely, reduction of length of stay versus increase of readmissions to higher care. No statistically significant effects were found in the reduction of mortality. The overall methodological quality of the 11 studies reviewed was relatively low, with an average score of 4.5 out of 11 points.

Conclusions

This review shows that liaison nurses and handover forms are promising interventions to improve the quality of patient handover between the ICU and general ward. More robust evidence is needed on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve ICU handover and supportive implementation strategies.

SUBMITTER: van Sluisveld N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4392116 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: In-hospital transfers such as from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the general internal medicine (GIM) ward place patients at risk of adverse events. A structured handover tool may improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Objective: To develop, implement, and evaluate a customized user-designed transfer tool to improve transitions from the ICU to the GIM ward. Methods: This was a pre-post intervention study at a tertiary academic hospital. We developed and implemented a user-designed, structured, handwritten ICU-to-GIM transfer tool. The tool included active medical issues, functional status, medications and medication changes, consulting services, code status, and emergency contact information. Transfer tool users included GIM physicians, ICU physicians, and critical care rapid response team nurses. An implementation audit and mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis of pre-post survey responses was used to evaluate clinician satisfaction and the perceived quality of patient transfers. Results: The pre-post survey response rate was 51.8% (99/191). Respondents included GIM residents (58.5%), ICU rapid response team physicians and nurses (24.2%), and GIM attending physicians (17.2%). Less than half of clinicians (48.8%) reported that the preintervention transfer process was adequate. Clinicians who used the transfer tool reported that the transfer process was improved (93.3% vs. 48.8%, P = 0.03). Clinician-reported understanding of medication changes in the ICU increased (69.2% vs. 29.1%, P = 0.004), as did their ability to plan for a safe hospital discharge (69.2% vs. 31.0%, P = 0.01). However, only 64.2% of audited transfers used the tool. Frequently omitted sections included home medications (missing in 83.4% of audits), new medications (33.3%), and secondary diagnosis (33.3%). Thematic analysis of free-text responses identified areas for improvement including clarifying the course of ICU events and enhancing tool usability. Conclusion: A user-designed, structured, handwritten transfer tool may improve the perceived quality of patient transfers from the ICU to the GIM wards.

Project description:Pharmacists in the intensive care unit (ICU) provide pharmaceutical care to critically ill patients. Identification and resolution of drug therapy problems improves outcomes for these patients. To maintain continuity of care, pharmacotherapy plans should be transferred to a receiving pharmacist upon discharge of patients from the ICU. No previous studies have addressed the development or evaluation of a systematic, standardized clinical handover tool and process for pharmacists.To assess pharmacists' satisfaction with and utilization of a pharmacotherapy-specific handover tool and process.Plan-do-study-act methodology was employed to develop a clinical handover tool and process, which were implemented in a Canadian health authority. For evaluation of the tool and process, a multicentre, online survey questionnaire was distributed to 14 clinical pharmacists in the ICU and ward settings at 5 hospitals between February 15 and April 22, 2016.Thirteen of the pharmacists completed the survey. All 13 pharmacists (100%) were satisfied with usability; 12 (92%) were satisfied with training, organization, and accuracy of the process; and 11 (85%) were satisfied with completeness and efficiency. Most pharmacists conducted 1 or 2 handovers per week, with each having a duration of 3-5 min. Seven (54%) of the respondents reported that they communicated handovers mostly or exclusively by telephone, and 6 (46%) reported using mostly or exclusively face-to-face communication. However, 6 (46%) reported a preference for face-to-face communication, and 3 (23%) reported a preference for the telephone; the remaining 4 (31%) had no preference for mode of communication.Respondents were highly satisfied with the handover tool and process. ICU pharmacists appeared more satisfied with the training, organization, and completeness of handover, whereas ward pharmacists appeared more satisfied with the accuracy and efficiency of handover. Workload requirements were minimal, and face-to-face interaction, although slightly less well utilized than the telephone, was the preferred method of communication.