Dataset Information

Assessing the quality of patient handovers between ambulance services and emergency department - development and validation of the emergency department human factors in handover tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient handover between prehospital care and the emergency department plays a key role in patient safety. Therefore, we aimed to create a validated tool for measuring quality of communication and interprofessional relations during handover in this specific setting.

Methods

Based on a theoretical framework a comprehensive item pool on information transfer and human factors in emergency department handovers was created and refined in a modified Delphi survey involving clinical experts. Based on a pre-test, items were again revised. The resulting Emergency Department Human Factors in Handover tool (ED-HFH) was validated in a field test at the emergency department of a German university hospital from July to December 2017. The ED-HFH was completed by emergency department and ambulance service staff participating in handovers and by an external observer. Description of item characteristics, exploratory factor analysis, analyses on internal consistency and interrater reliability by intraclass-correlation. Construct validity was analysed by correlation with an overall rating on quality of the handover.

Results

The draft of the ED-HFH contained 24 items, 90 of 102 eligible staff members participated in the field test completing 133 questionnaires on 38 observed handovers. Four items were deleted after analysis of item characteristics. Factor analysis supported a single factor explaining 39% of variance in the items. Therefore, a sum-score was calculated with a possible range between 14 and 70. The median value of the sum-score in the sample was 61.5, Cronbach's α was 0.83, intraclass-correlation was 0.52, the correlation with the overall rating of hand-over quality was ρ = 0.83 (p ≤ 0.001).

Conclusions

The ED-HFH showed its feasibility, reliability and validity as a measure of quality of information transfer and human factors in handovers between ambulance services and the emergency department. It promises to be a useful tool for quality assurance and staff training.

SUBMITTER: Golling M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8772155 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinical handovers of patient care among healthcare professionals is vulnerable to the loss of important clinical information. A verbal report is typically provided by paramedics and documented by emergency department (ED) triage nurses. Paramedics subsequently complete a patient care report which is submitted electronically. This emergency medical system (EMS) patient care report often contains details of paramedic assessment and management that is not all captured in the nursing triage note. EMS patient care reports are often unavailable for review by emergency physicians and nurses. Two processes occur in the distribution of EMS patient care reports. The first is an external process to the ED that is influenced by the prehospital emergency medical system and results in the report being faxed to the ED. The second process is internal to the ED that requires clerical staff to distribute the fax report to accompany patient charts. A baseline audit measured the percentage of EMS patient care reports that were available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessments and showed a wide variation in the availability of EMS reports. Also measured were the time intervals from patient transfer from EMS to ED stretcher until the EMS report was received by fax (external process measure) and the time from receiving the EMS fax report until distribution to patient chart (internal process measure). These baseline measures showed a wide variation in the time it takes to receive the EMS reports by fax and to distribute reports. Improvement strategies consisted of: 1. Educating ED clerical staff about the importance of EMS reports 2. Implementing a new process to minimize ED clerical staff handling of EMS reports for nonactive ED patients 3. Elimination of the automatic retrieval of old hospital charts and their distribution for ED patients 4. Introduction of an electronic dashboard for patients arriving by ambulance to facilitate more efficient distribution of EMS reports. Implementation of change strategies did not result in a significant improvement in the percentage of EMS reports available to emergency physicians at the time of initial patient assessment. However, tracking both external and internal processes that influence EMS report availability showed the internal process time from fax report receipt to distribution significantly improved. This improvement reflected the change strategies that were all directed at improving the internal process. EMS patient care reports are more efficiently processed and distributed in the ED due to change strategies implemented that targeted the ED's internal process of EMS report distribution. The external process responsible for transmitting EMS reports to the ED is the limiting factor that prevents consistent timely access of EMS reports by emergency physicians and will require dedicated improvement strategies.

Project description:Background:Dialysis patients who require ambulance transport to the emergency department ("ambulance-ED") may subsequently require timely dialysis in a monitored setting ("urgent dialysis"). Objective:The purpose of this study was to develop and internally validate a risk prediction model for urgent dialysis based on patient characteristics at the time of paramedic assessment before ambulance-ED. Design:Cohort Study. Setting:Region of Nova Scotia, Canada, covered by a single emergency medical services provider. Patients:Thrice-weekly hemodialysis patients who initiated dialysis between 2009 and 2013 (follow-up to 2015) and experienced one or more ambulance-ED events. Measurements:The primary outcome ("urgent dialysis") was defined as dialysis within 24 hours of an ambulance-ED in a monitored setting or dialysis within 24 hours of an ambulance-ED with an initial ED potassium of >6.5 mmol/L. Predictors of urgent dialysis based on paramedic assessment before ambulance-ED included presenting complaint, vital signs and time from last dialysis to ambulance dispatch. Methods:Associations with urgent dialysis were analyzed using logistic regression from which a risk prediction model was created. The model was internally validated using bootstrapping and model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration. Results:Among 197 patients, there were 624 ambulance-ED events and 87 episodes of urgent dialysis. Weakness as a presenting complaint (odds ratio [OR]: 4.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23-17.29), >24 hours since last dialysis (OR: 2.09, 95% CI: 1.15-3.81), and vital signs, including heart rate <60 beats/minute (OR: 3.06, 95% CI: 1.09-8.61), oxygen saturation <90% (OR: 3.04, 95% CI: 1.55-5.94), elevated respiratory rate (?20 breaths/min), and systolic blood pressure>160 mmHg, were associated with urgent dialysis after ambulance-ED. A risk prediction model incorporating these variables had very good discrimination (C-statistic: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.86). The negative predictive value was 93.6% using the optimal cut point. Of patients who were predicted to need urgent dialysis but were transported to a facility incapable of providing it, 31% were re-transported for urgent dialysis. Limitations:Findings of our study may not be generalizable to other centers where the practice of ambulance transfer and availability of monitored dialysis may differ, and data were lacking for potential missed dialysis sessions or changes in routine dialysis scheduling. Conclusions:Patient characteristics at the time of paramedic assessment are associated with urgent dialysis after ambulance-ED. This risk prediction model has the potential to guide dialysis patient transport to dialysis-capable facilities when needed.