Pilot study to show the loss of important data in nursing handover.

Department of Otolaryngology, Gloucester Royal Hospital, Gloucester.
British journal of nursing (Mark Allen Publishing) 11/2005; 14(20):1090-3. DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2005.14.20.20053
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT A good nursing handover process is a crucial part of providing quality nursing care in a modern healthcare environment. The conservation of patient data during the handover process is vital to ensure good continuity of care and safe practice. Any errors or omissions made during the handover process may have dangerous consequences. The authors observed the handover of 12 simulated patients over five consecutive handover cycles between nurses. Three handover styles were used and the amount of data loss was recorded for each style. A purely verbal handover style resulted in the loss of all data after three cycles. A note-taking style (the traditional style used in most hospital wards) resulted in only 31% of data being transferred correctly after five cycles. When a typed sheet was included with the verbal handover, data loss was minimal. Current handover methods may result in significant loss of important data that may impact on patient care. The authors recommend that prior to handover, a formal handover sheet be constructed that can be transferred as part of the handover process.

  • Source
    Edited by CECOVA, 02/2015; CECOVA., ISBN: 84-697-1459-7
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The aim of the present study was to investigate the challenges faced by physicians during shift handovers in a university hospital that has a high handover sender/recipient ratio. Methods: A multifaceted approach was adopted, comprising recording and analysis of handover information, rating of handover quality, and shadowing of handover recipients. Data was collected at the general medical ward of a university hospital in Singapore for a period of three months. Handover information transfer (i.e. senders' and recipients' verbal communication, and recipients' handwritten notes) and handover environmental factors were analysed. The relationship between 'to-do' tasks, and information transfer, handover quality and handover duration, were examined using analysis of variance. Results: Verbal handovers for 152 patients were observed; handwritten notes on 102 (67.1%) patients and handover quality ratings for the handovers of 98 (64.5%) patients were collected. Although there was good task prioritisation (information transfer: p < 0.005, handover duration: p < 0.01), incomplete information transfer and poor implementation of nonmodifiable identifiers were observed. The high sender/recipient ratio of the hospital made face-to-face and/or bedside handover difficult to implement. Although the current handover method (i.e. use of telephone communication), allowed interactive communication, it resulted in systemic information loss due to the lack of written information. The handover environment was chaotic in the high sender/recipient ratio setting, and the physicians had no designated handover time or location. Conclusion: Handovers in high sender/recipient ratio settings are challenging. Efforts should be made to improve the handover processes in such situations, so that patient care is not compromised.
    Singapore medical journal 12/2014; 56(02). DOI:10.11622/smedj.2014198 · 0.63 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The clinical handover of critically ill postoperative patients from the operating theatre to the intensive care unit is a dynamic and complex process that can lead to communication and technical errors. The objectives of this integrative review were to illustrate how the use of structured handover processes between the operating theatre and intensive care unit impacts information transfer, handover duration, post-handover technical error and high risk events. Integrative review methodology was used to allow for the inclusion of broad research designs, summarising current knowledge from existing research and identify gaps in the literature. A systematic search of electronic databases including the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane library, Embase, ProQuest central and PubMed were performed. Original research articles, in either adults or paediatrics, specific to handover between an operating theatre and intensive care unit were included. Data extracted from studies included country of origin, sample size, number of hospital sites, study design, study aim, measures, key findings and limitations. The quality of the integrative review articles was assessed against the 'Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers'. Ten articles meeting the inclusion criteria were included in the final analysis. Information transfer, post-handover technical errors and high risk events were positively influenced by the use of structured clinical handover tools. Handover duration did not change when using structured handover protocols. The body of literature on clinical handover between operating theatre and the intensive care unit is in its early stages of development. Future research using rigorous study designs, broader populations and varied surgical procedures are needed to further evaluate the effect of clinical handover protocols. Copyright © 2015 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Australian Critical Care 03/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.aucc.2015.02.001 · 1.27 Impact Factor


Available from
May 27, 2014