Improving Patient Safety in General Hospitals Using Structured Handoffs: Outcomes From a National Project.
ISBAR
handoffs
patient safety
patient's transfer
standardized tool
team communication
Journal
Frontiers in public health
ISSN: 2296-2565
Titre abrégé: Front Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101616579
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
05
10
2021
accepted:
16
02
2022
entrez:
4
4
2022
pubmed:
5
4
2022
medline:
6
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Promoting quality and patient safety is one of the health policy pillars of Israel's Ministry of Health. Communication among healthcare professionals is of utmost importance and can be improved using a standardized, well-known handoff tool such as the Introduction, Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendations (ISBAR). This study aims to present implementation process and participants' satisfaction of a national project that used a standardized tool for team communication. This national intervention project included process implementation teams from 17 Israeli general hospitals evaluating the ISBAR implementation process for transferring patients from intensive care units to medical/surgical wards. The project, conducted between January 2017 and March 2018, used Fischer's test and logistic regression. The project evaluation was based on the participants' assessment of and satisfaction with the handoff process. Eighty-seven process implementers completed the questionnaire. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores in terms of four variables ( Implementation of a safety project at a national level requires careful planning and the close involvement of the participating teams. A standardized instrument, a well-defined process, and external controls to monitor and manage the project are essential for success. Disparities found in the responses of nurses vs. physicians suggest the need for a different approach for each profession in planning and executing a similar project in the future.
Sections du résumé
Background
Promoting quality and patient safety is one of the health policy pillars of Israel's Ministry of Health. Communication among healthcare professionals is of utmost importance and can be improved using a standardized, well-known handoff tool such as the Introduction, Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendations (ISBAR). This study aims to present implementation process and participants' satisfaction of a national project that used a standardized tool for team communication.
Methods
This national intervention project included process implementation teams from 17 Israeli general hospitals evaluating the ISBAR implementation process for transferring patients from intensive care units to medical/surgical wards. The project, conducted between January 2017 and March 2018, used Fischer's test and logistic regression. The project evaluation was based on the participants' assessment of and satisfaction with the handoff process.
Results
Eighty-seven process implementers completed the questionnaire. A statistically significant increase in satisfaction scores in terms of four variables (
Conclusions
Implementation of a safety project at a national level requires careful planning and the close involvement of the participating teams. A standardized instrument, a well-defined process, and external controls to monitor and manage the project are essential for success. Disparities found in the responses of nurses vs. physicians suggest the need for a different approach for each profession in planning and executing a similar project in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35372215
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.777678
pmc: PMC8965813
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
777678Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Toren, Lipschuetz, Lehmann, Regev and Arad.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Références
J Healthc Qual. 2009 Sep-Oct;31(5):19-28
pubmed: 19813557
N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371(19):1803-12
pubmed: 25372088
JAMA. 2016 Dec 06;316(21):2204-2213
pubmed: 27923090
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 Feb;36(2):51
pubmed: 20180436
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2010 Feb;36(2):52-61
pubmed: 20180437
Anesth Analg. 2012 Jul;115(1):102-15
pubmed: 22543067
J Crit Care. 2011 Apr;26(2):155-9
pubmed: 21482347
J Biomed Inform. 2021 Oct;122:103914
pubmed: 34509637
Clin Geriatr Med. 2018 Aug;34(3):387-397
pubmed: 30031423
Comput Inform Nurs. 2018 Oct;36(10):484-493
pubmed: 30045130
Hum Factors. 2013 Feb;55(1):138-56
pubmed: 23516799
West J Emerg Med. 2018 Mar;19(2):372-379
pubmed: 29560068
Ann Surg. 2019 May;269(5):785-791
pubmed: 30601246
J Intensive Care Soc. 2017 Feb;18(1):17-23
pubmed: 28979532
Ann Surg. 2020 Mar;271(3):484-493
pubmed: 30499797
Postgrad Med J. 2011 May;87(1027):340-4
pubmed: 21310805
J Clin Nurs. 2010 Sep;19(17-18):2580-9
pubmed: 20522156
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jun;23(6):483-9
pubmed: 24336577
Arch Intern Med. 2007 Oct 22;167(19):2030-6
pubmed: 17954795
Sentinel Event Alert. ;(58):1-6
pubmed: 28914519