Warfield, Karen T.

Background Nursing handoff is a communication activity with a high risk for loss or omission of information. Efforts to improve handoffs include standardization of the processes and content of handoff communications. Objectives To examine nurses’ perspectives on the structure and organization of change-of-shift handoffs. Methods A qualitative descriptive approach was used to conduct a secondary analysis of focus group data. Thirty-four nurses from 4 critical care units participated in focus groups. Results Three themes emerged: handoff elements are defined by practice and culture; a clear, consistent, identified structure supports handoff; and personal preferences can disrupt handoff. Conclusions A standardized approach to handoff based on unit and organizational needs will be more successful than a broad mandate of content and organization. Individual preference is prevalent and strongly influences the information conveyed and the structure of handoff communication.

AbstractBackgroundThe importance of change‐of‐shift handoffs in maintaining patient safety has been well demonstrated. Change‐of‐shift handoff is an important source of data used in surveillance, a nursing intervention aimed at identifying and preventing complications. Surveillance requires the nurse to acquire, process, and synthesize information (cues) encountered during patient care. Interruptions in handoff have been observed but there is a gap in the evidence concerning how interruptions during nurse‐to‐nurse handoff impact the change‐of‐shift handoff process.AimsTo describe registered nurses’ perceptions of interruptions experienced during change‐of‐shift handoff at the bedside in critical care units and analyze the number, type, and source of interruptions during change‐of‐shift handoff at the bedside.MethodsAn exploratory descriptive design was used. One hundred nurse‐to‐nurse handoffs were observed, and four focus groups were conducted. Observation data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and quantitative content analysis. Focus group data were analyzed with qualitative content analysis.Results and FindingsOf the 1,196 interruptions observed, 800 occurred in the communication between the two nurses involved in the handoff. Over 80% (645) of these interruptions were from the nurse receiving handoff and included questions or clarification of information received. About half of the nurses reported that interruptions occurred during handoff. Focus group findings revealed that whether or not something is an interruption is determined by the individual nurse’s appraisal of value added to their knowledge of the patient and/or plan of care at the time of handoff.Linking Evidence to ActionInterruptions during handoff are evaluated as useful or disruptive based on the value to the nurse at the time. Strict structuring or mandating of handoff elements may limit nurses’ ability to communicate information deemed most relevant to the care of a specific unique patient.

Background Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) orders are intended to safeguard patients' autonomy and prevent unwanted resuscitative care. However, DNR orders may be miscommunicated between health care providers, leading to errors honoring patient wishes during cardiac arrest events. This project focused on improving accuracy of DNR ordering processes for an academic, tertiary care hospital. Intervention We describe a performance improvement process and outcomes for implementation of an inpatient electronic ordering system that included an automated, decentralized printing process for resuscitation status armbands. Specific phases of this project involved: (a) identification of common factors contributing to errors honoring patients‘ resuscitation wishes, (b) design of an electronic ordering process, (c) design and integration of a new DNR armband and (d) evaluation of the impact of changes on communication accuracy. The primary outcome was percentage of patients with incorrect designation of resuscitation status on armbands compared to the active resuscitation order in the electronic medical record. Results After implementation of an electronic ordering process we identified that 37/196 (19%) patients had an armband that did not reflect their documented wishes versus 2/103 (2%) after integration of automated armband printing into the process (p<0.001). No armband discrepancies were found after the first two weeks of post-implementation audits. Conclusions Design and implementation of an electronic ordering and armband labeling process reduced discrepancies between patient wishes and the armband labeling of the patient's desired DNR status. It is anticipated that these improvements will reduce the risk of adverse outcomes, and better align clinical processes with patient wishes.