Berrios, Ronaldo Sevilla

With the ever-increasing adoption of shift models for intensive care unit (ICU) staffing, improving shift-to-shift handoffs represents an important step in reducing medical errors. The authors developed an electronic handoff tool integrated within the existing electronic medical record to improve handoffs in an adult ICU. First, stakeholder (staff intensivists, fellows, and nurse practitioners/physician assistants) input was sought to define what elements they perceived as being essential to a quality handoff. The principal outcome measure of handoff accuracy was the concordance between data transmitted by the outgoing team and data received by the incoming team (termed as agreement). Based on stakeholder input, the authors developed the handoff tool and provided regular education on its use. Handoffs were observed before and after implementation of the tool. There was an increase in the level of agreement for tasks and other important data points handed off without an increase in the time required to complete the handoff.

Purpose: The strategy used to improve effective checklist use in intensive care unit (ICU) setting is essential for checklist success. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that an electronic checklist could reduce ICU provider workload, errors, and time to checklist completion, as compared to a paper checklist. Methods: This was a simulation-based study conducted at an academic tertiary hospital. All participants completed checklists for 6 ICU patients: 3 using an electronic checklist and 3 using an identical paper checklist. In both scenarios, participants had full access to the existing electronic medical record system. The outcomes measured were workload (defined using the National Aeronautics and Space Association task load index [NASA-TLX]), the number of checklist errors, and time to checklist completion. Two independent clinician reviewers, blinded to participant results, served as the reference standard for checklist error calculation. Results: Twenty-one ICU providers participated in this study. This resulted in the generation of 63 simulated electronic checklists and 63 simulated paper checklists. The median NASA-TLX score was 39 for the electronic checklist and 50 for the paper checklist ( P = .005). The median number of checklist errors for the electronic checklist was 5, while the median number of checklist errors for the paper checklist was 8 ( P = .003). The time to checklist completion was not significantly different between the 2 checklist formats ( P = .76). Conclusion: The electronic checklist significantly reduced provider workload and errors without any measurable difference in the amount of time required for checklist completion. This demonstrates that electronic checklists are feasible and desirable in the ICU setting.

AbstractRationale, aims and objectivesChecklists have been adopted by various institutions to improve patient outcomes. In particular, readmission prevention checklists may be of potential value to improve patient care and reduce medical costs. As a result, a prior quality improvement study was conducted to create an intensive care unit readmission prevention checklist. The previous pilot demonstrated zero readmissions when the readmission prevention checklist was utilized but yielded low compliance (30%). Thus, a subsequent quality initiative was undertaken to refine the readmission prevention checklist with the primary aim of improved compliance while maintaining a reduced readmission rate that was observed with the original quality improvement study.MethodA single‐centre, cross‐sectional study for assessing baseline data and a prospective observational study to assess the effectiveness of a refined readmission prevention checklist tool in a 20‐bed tertiary medical‐surgical intensive care unit at an academic medical centre in Rochester, MN was conducted. Medical patients admitted through the emergency department, upon direct transfer from outside facility, and post‐operative surgical patients at our institution were included. A refined readmission prevention checklist tool was administered during an 8‐week pilot period for medical and post‐operative surgical patients.ResultsThe refined readmission prevention checklist resulted in an even lower compliance (10.5%) from the initial phase likely resulting from utilization of a paper readmission prevention checklist in an electronic medical environment. Moreover, the refined readmission prevention checklist demonstrated a 22% unplanned readmission rate for patients in which the tool was utilized.ConclusionsIn conclusion, the findings of the current quality improvement study may serve to rethink the process of health care delivery that applies paper tools in an electronic medical environment.