Structured handoff checklists improve clinical measures in patients discharged from the neurointensive care unit.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Coon EA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5764427 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Structured handoff checklists improve clinical measures in patients discharged from the neurointensive care unit.
Coon Elizabeth A EA Kramer Neha M NM Fabris Rachel R RR Burkholder David B DB Klaas James P JP Graff-Radford Jonathan J Moore S Arthur SA Wijdicks Eelco F M EFM Britton Jeffrey W JW Jones Lyell K LK
Neurology. Clinical practice 20150201 1
While up to 80% of medical errors may result from poor communication at clinical transitions of care, there has been relatively little study of the effect of standardized communication tools on clinical quality measures. We prospectively examined the effect of a standardized handoff checklist on clinical outcomes for patients dismissed from the neurointensive care unit. We found that the checklist resulted in significant reductions in patients transferred with inaccurate medication reconciliatio ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Hospital-acquired infections are common in neurointensive care units. We sought to review interventions which may reduce infection rates in neurocritically ill populations. We conducted a systematic review of studies targeting adult patients in neuro-intensive care units (neuro-ICUs) with an intervention designed to prevent ICU-acquired infections. Our outcome of interest was change in the prevalence or rates of infection between active and control arms of these studies. We excluded studies based on the following criteria: no English full-text version available; pediatric population; non-neurosciences ICU population; pre- or intraoperative methods to prevent infection; lack of discrete data for infection rates/prevalence; studies that were purely observational in nature and did not test an intervention; and studies performed in resource limited settings. We initially retrieved 3716 results by searching the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE via Ovid, and Cochrane CENTRAL via Ovid. No date or language limits were used in the search. Computerized deduplication was conducted using EndNote followed by a confirmatory manual review resulting in 3414 citations. An additional 19 manuscripts were identified through review of references. The screening process followed a standard protocol, using two screeners at the title/abstract level to determine relevance and at the full-text level to determine eligibility for inclusion. The 3427 titles/abstracts were independently screened by two board-certified neurointensivists to determine relevance for full-text review, and 3248 were rejected. The remaining 179 abstracts were reviewed in full text using predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Ultimately, 75 articles met our inclusion criteria and were utilized in the final analysis. The reviewed literature highlights the need for collaborative, multi-disciplinary, and multi-pronged approaches to reduce infections. Rates of VRI, SSI, VAP, CAUTI, and CLABSI can approach zero with persistence and a team-based approach.
| S-EPMC6329681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionHandoffs have been shown to be a potential cause of communication failures, leading to possible inefficiencies and patient harm. We noticed that our CA-1 residents were struggling with patient handoffs and designed this simulation to improve their handoff skills.MethodsThis anesthesiology-specific simulation introduced learners to the perioperative handoff process. We designed it for anesthesiology learners, including junior residents, medical students, and student nurse anesthetists. The simulation centered upon an anesthesiology resident taking care of an ICU patient and handing that patient off to another anesthesiology provider, who took the patient to the OR. We charged learners with reviewing the patient's history and hospital course and giving a complete handoff. We evaluated learners on the completeness and quality of the handoff, as well as on their performance during the session.ResultsTwenty-seven learners participated in this handoff simulation. The participants reported that the simulation improved their understanding of the anesthetic implications of medical conditions and gave them a better understanding of the essential elements of a handoff. Learners also indicated that the debriefing portion of the simulation was effective in filling some of their medical knowledge gaps and improving their handoff skills.DiscussionThis simulation was found to be an effective educational experience for our CA-1 and CA-3 residents, medical students, and student nurse anesthetists. Feedback was positive from all learners. As a result, this simulation will be implemented in the early learning curriculum for all of our CA-1 residents.
| S-EPMC7083603 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Standardized rounding checklists during multidisciplinary rounds (MDR) can reduce medical errors and decrease length of pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and hospital stay. We added a standardized process for MDR in our oncologic PICU. Our study was a quality improvement initiative, utilizing a four-stage Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model to standardize MDR in our PICU over 3 months, from January 2020 to March 2020. We distributed surveys to PICU RNs to assess their understanding regarding communication during MDR. We created a standardized rounding checklist that addressed key elements during MDR. Safety event reports before and after implementation of our initiative were retrospectively reviewed to assess our initiative's impact on safety events. Our intervention increased standardization of PICU MDR from 0% to 70% over three months, from January 2020 to March 2020. We sustained a rate of zero for CLABSI, CAUTI, and VAP during the 12-month period prior to, during, and post-intervention. Implementation of a standardized rounding checklist may improve closed-loop communication amongst the healthcare team, facilitate dialogue between patients' families and the healthcare team, and reduce safety events. Additional staffing for resource RNs, who assist with high acuity patients, has also facilitated bedside RN participation in MDR, without interruptions in clinical care.
| S-EPMC9025551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients who require readmission to an intensive care unit (ICU) after transfer to a lower level of care ("bounceback") suffer from increased mortality and longer hospital stays. We aimed to create a multifaceted standardized transfer process for patients moving from the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU) to a lower level of care. We hypothesized that this process would lead to improvement in provider-rated safety and a decreased rate of bouncebacks to the neuro-ICU after transfer.MethodsThe study took place at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from October 2018 to October 2020. A standardized five-step transfer process was created and implemented for transferring patients from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care. Patient care providers completed a survey before and after implementation of the protocol to assess a variety of components related to safety concerns when transferring patients. The rate of bouncebacks pre and post intervention was calculated by using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and disposition at discharge was calculated by using Fisher's exact test.ResultsOf the 1176 total patient transfers out of the neuro-ICU, 29 patients bounced back within 48 h. The average age of patients who bounced back was 63.3 years old, with a similar distribution among men and women. The most common reason for bounceback was respiratory distress, followed by cardiac arrhythmia, stroke, and sepsis. Implementation of the standardized process led to a decrease in provider-rated concern of overall safety (5 to 3, p = 0.008). There was improvement in transfer delays due to bed availability (3 to 4.5, p = 0.020), identification of high-risk patients (5 to 6, p = 0.021), patient assignment to the appropriate level of care (5 to 6, p = 0.019), and use of the electronic medical record handoff indicator (5 to 6, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of patient bounceback rate after implementation of the process (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 1.00) or patient disposition at discharge (p = 0.553).ConclusionsPatients who bounceback to the neuro-ICU within 48 h had an increased length of hospital stay, had an increased length of ICU stay, and were more likely to be intubated for more than 96 h. Implementation of a standardized five-step transfer process from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care resulted in improvement in multiple provider-rated safety outcomes and identification of high-risk patients but led to no difference in the patient bounceback rate or patient disposition at discharge.
| S-EPMC8598102 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rounding checklists are an increasingly common quality improvement tool in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, effectiveness studies have shown conflicting results. We sought to understand ICU providers' perceptions of checklists, as well as barriers and facilitators to effective utilisation of checklists during daily rounds. OBJECTIVES:To understand how ICU providers perceive rounding checklists and develop a framework for more effective rounding checklist implementation. METHODS:We performed a qualitative study in 32 ICUs within 14 hospitals in a large integrated health system in the USA. We used two complementary data collection methods: direct observation of daily rounds and semistructured interviews with ICU clinicians. Observations and interviews were thematically coded and primary themes were identified using a combined inductive and deductive approach. RESULTS:We conducted 89 interviews and performed 114 hours of observation. Among study ICUs, 12 used checklists and 20 did not. Participants described the purpose of rounding checklists as a daily reminder for evidence-based practices, a tool for increasing shared understanding of patient care across care providers and a way to increase the efficiency of rounds. Checklists were perceived as not helpful when viewed as overstandardising care and when they are not relevant to a particular ICU's needs. Strategies to improve checklist implementation include attention to the brevity and relevance of the checklist to the particular ICU, consistent use over time, and integration with daily work flow. CONCLUSION:Our results provide potential insights about why ICU rounding checklists frequently fail to improve outcomes and offer a framework for effective checklist implementation through greater feedback and accountability.
| S-EPMC6886517 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Clinical handovers have been identified as high-risk situations for medical treatment errors. It has been shown that handover checklists lead to a reduced rate of medical errors and mortality. However, the influence of handover checklists on essential patient outcomes such as prevalence of sepsis, mortality, and length of hospitalization has not yet been investigated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Objectives: The aim of the present pilot study was to estimate the effect of two different handover checklists on the 48 h sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and the feasibility of a respective clinical RCT. Methods: Outcome parameters and feasibility were investigated implementing and comparing an intervention with a control checklist. Design: Single center two-armed cluster randomized prospective crossover pilot study. Setting: The study took place over three 1-month periods in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting at the University Hospital Aachen. Patients/Participants: Data from 1,882 patients on seven ICU wards were assessed, of which 1,038 were included in the analysis. Intervention: A digital standardized handover checklist (ISBAR3) was compared to a control checklist (VICUR). Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the 2nd 24 h time window sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes were SOFA scores on the 3rd and 5th 24 h time window, mortality, reuptake, and length of stay; handover duration, degree of satisfaction, and compliance as feasibility-related outcomes. Results: Different sepsis scores were observed only for the 1st 24 h time window after admission to the ICU, with higher values for ISBAR3. With respect to the patient-centered outcomes, both checklists achieved similar results. Average handover duration was shorter for VICUR, whereas satisfaction and compliance were higher for ISBAR3. However, overall compliance was low (25.4% for ISBAR3 and 15.8% for VICUR). Conclusions: Based on the results, a stratified randomization procedure is recommended for following RCTs, in which medical treatment errors should also be investigated as an additional variable. The use of control checklists is discouraged due to lower acceptance and compliance among healthcare practitioners. Measures should be undertaken to increase compliance with the use of checklists. Clinical outcome parameters should be carefully selected. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier [NCT03117088]. Registered April 14, 2017.
| S-EPMC8093756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Patient handoffs are common during residency and are often performed with little or no training. We devised a simple intervention to improve the readiness of interns to perform handoffs. METHODS: We administered a 90-minute interactive workshop during intern orientation in 2009 and 2010. It consisted of a discussion, a case presentation, and a trigger video, followed by debriefing and a role-play exercise. The workshop required minimal technology and materials. Interns were surveyed on their readiness to perform handoffs before and after the workshop as well as 3 to 6 months after the workshop. RESULTS: Eighty-nine interns participated in the workshop during a 2-year period. Seventy-four survey responses were collected. Self-reported readiness to perform a handoff increased by 26%. A total of 91% and 81% of respondents in 2010 and 2009, respectively, reported using aspects of the workshop up to 6 months later. CONCLUSION: A brief workshop can improve interns' readiness to perform handoffs.
| S-EPMC3312537 | biostudies-other
Project description:Despite the adaptation of checklists for specific surgeries being developed, there remains a lack of an available standard for an orthopaedic-specific checklist. Benefits of implementing checklists include cost-effectiveness as well as the ability to significantly reduce both mortality and complication rates in a variety of healthcare settings. The aim of this review is to analyze the evidence surrounding the effectiveness of checklists as well as recommend for the development of a standard checklist for specific orthopaedic surgeries such as total joint arthroplasty (TJA).
| S-EPMC6324766 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIntensive care unit (ICU) admission may connote an elevated risk of unintentional chronic medication discontinuation because of its focus on acute illnesses and the multiple care transitions.ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of patients discharged from the ICU whose previously prescribed chronic medications were unintentionally discontinued during their hospitalization.Design and participantsHospital records of consecutive ICU discharges at 1 academic and 2 community hospitals in Toronto, Canada, throughout 2002 were reviewed. Eligible patients were prescribed at least 1 of 6 medication groups before hospitalization: (1) HMG co-A reductase inhibitors (statins); (2) antiplatelets/anticoagulants (aspirin, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, warfarin); (3) l-thyroxine; (4) non-prn inhalers (anticholinergic, beta-agonist, or steroid); (5) acid-suppressing drugs (H2 antagonists and proton pump inhibitors); and (6) allopurinol.MeasurementsUse of explicit criteria to assess the proportion of patients whose previously prescribed chronic medications were unintentionally discontinued at hospital discharge.ResultsA total of 1,402 charts were eligible for the study and 834 had prescriptions for at least 1 of the medication groups. Thirty-three percent (251/834) of patients had 1 or more of their chronic medications omitted at hospital discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analysis found that patients from the academic hospital (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 1.0) and those with medical diagnoses (adjusted OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.75) had a decreased risk for chronic medication discontinuation.ConclusionsPatients discharged from the ICU often leave the hospital without note of their previously prescribed chronic medications. Careful review of medication lists at ICU discharge could avoid potential adverse outcomes related to unintentional discontinuation of chronic medications at hospital discharge.
| S-EPMC1831608 | biostudies-literature