Do Digital Handover Checklists Influence the Clinical Outcome Parameters of Intensive Care Unit Patients? A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study

Nina Verholen, Lina Vogt, Martin Klasen, Michelle Schmidt, Stefan Beckers, Gernot Marx, Saša Sopka, Nina Verholen, Lina Vogt, Martin Klasen, Michelle Schmidt, Stefan Beckers, Gernot Marx, Saša Sopka

Abstract

Background: Clinical handovers have been identified as high-risk situations for medical treatment errors. It has been shown that handover checklists lead to a reduced rate of medical errors and mortality. However, the influence of handover checklists on essential patient outcomes such as prevalence of sepsis, mortality, and length of hospitalization has not yet been investigated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Objectives: The aim of the present pilot study was to estimate the effect of two different handover checklists on the 48 h sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and the feasibility of a respective clinical RCT. Methods: Outcome parameters and feasibility were investigated implementing and comparing an intervention with a control checklist. Design: Single center two-armed cluster randomized prospective crossover pilot study. Setting: The study took place over three 1-month periods in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting at the University Hospital Aachen. Patients/Participants: Data from 1,882 patients on seven ICU wards were assessed, of which 1,038 were included in the analysis. Intervention: A digital standardized handover checklist (ISBAR3) was compared to a control checklist (VICUR). Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the 2nd 24 h time window sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes were SOFA scores on the 3rd and 5th 24 h time window, mortality, reuptake, and length of stay; handover duration, degree of satisfaction, and compliance as feasibility-related outcomes. Results: Different sepsis scores were observed only for the 1st 24 h time window after admission to the ICU, with higher values for ISBAR3. With respect to the patient-centered outcomes, both checklists achieved similar results. Average handover duration was shorter for VICUR, whereas satisfaction and compliance were higher for ISBAR3. However, overall compliance was low (25.4% for ISBAR3 and 15.8% for VICUR). Conclusions: Based on the results, a stratified randomization procedure is recommended for following RCTs, in which medical treatment errors should also be investigated as an additional variable. The use of control checklists is discouraged due to lower acceptance and compliance among healthcare practitioners. Measures should be undertaken to increase compliance with the use of checklists. Clinical outcome parameters should be carefully selected. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier [NCT03117088]. Registered April 14, 2017.

Keywords: ICU; ISBAR3; checklists; feasibility; patient safety; pilot study; standardized handover; study design.

Conflict of interest statement

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.

Copyright © 2021 Verholen, Vogt, Klasen, Schmidt, Beckers, Marx and Sopka.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The ISBAR3 checklist.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The VICUR checklist.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Study design.

References

    1. World Health Organization (WHO) . Patient Safety. WHO (2020). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) . Data and Statistics. (2020). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. De Vries EN, Ramrattan MA, Smorenburg SM, Gouma DJ, Boermeester MA. The incidence and nature of in-hospital adverse events: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf . (2008) 17:216–23. 10.1136/qshc.2007.023622
    1. Brennan TA, Gawande A, Thomas E, Studdert D. Accidental deaths, saved lives, and improved quality. N Engl J Med. (2005) 353:1405–9. 10.1056/NEJMsb051157
    1. Eisold C, Heller AR. Risikomanagement in anästhesie und intensivmedizin. Anaesthesist. (2016) 65:473–88. 10.1007/s00101-016-0189-9
    1. Jürgens JJS. Das Kommunikationsmodell SBAR - Eine systematische Literaturrecherche zur Effektivität des strukturierten Kommunikationsmodells SBAR in Bezug auf Patientensicherheit. Dissertation, Universität zu Köln; (2016).
    1. Flemming D, Hübner U. How to improve change of shift handovers and collaborative grounding and what role does the electronic patient record system play? Results of a systematic literature review. Int J Med Inform. (2013) 82:580–92. 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.03.004
    1. Mukherjee S. A precarious exchange. N Engl J Med. (2004) 351:1822–4. 10.1056/NEJMp048085
    1. Okie S. An elusive balance – residents' work hours and the continuity of care. N Engl J Med. (2007) 356:2665–7. 10.1056/NEJMp078085
    1. Kitch BT, Cooper JB, Zapol WM, Marder JE, Karson A, Hutter M, et al. . Handoffs causing patient harm: a survey of medical and surgical house staff. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf . (2008) 34:563–70. 10.1016/S1553-7250(08)34071-9
    1. Molesworth BRC, Estival D. Miscommunication in general aviation: the influence of external factors on communication errors. Saf Sci. (2015) 73:73–9. 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.004
    1. The Joint Commission . Annual Report: Improving America's Hospitals. (2007). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. Eggins S, Slade D. Communication in clinical handover: improving the safety and quality of the patient experience. J Public Health Res. (2015) 4:666. 10.4081/jphr.2015.666
    1. McSweeney ME, Lightdale JR, Vinci RJ, Moses J. Patient handoffs: pediatric resident experiences and lessons learned. Clin Pediatr (Phila). (2011) 50:57–63. 10.1177/0009922810379906
    1. Starmer AJ, Sectish TC, Simon DW, Keohane C, McSweeney ME, Chung EY, et al. . Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle. JAMA. (2013) 310:2262. 10.1001/jama.2013.281961
    1. Stewart KR. SBAR, Communication, and Patient Safety: An Integrated Literature Review. Dissertation, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (2016).
    1. Beuken JA, Verstegen DML, Dolmans DHJM, Van Kersbergen L, Losfeld X, Sopka S, et al. . Going the extra mile - cross-border patient handover in a European border region: qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perspectives. BMJ Qual Saf. (2020) 29:980–7. 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010509
    1. Robertson ER, Morgan L, Bird S, Catchpole K, McCulloch P. Interventions employed to improve intrahospital handover: a systematic review. BMJ Qual Saf . (2014) 23:600–7. 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002309
    1. Hoffmann B, Rohe J. Patient safety and error management. Dtsch Aerzteblatt Online. (2010) 107:92–100. 10.3238/arztebl.2010.0092
    1. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, West DC, Rosenbluth G, Allen AD, et al. . Supplementary appendix to changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. (2014) 371:1803–12. 10.1056/NEJMsa1405556
    1. de Vries EN, Prins HA, Crolla RMPH, den Outer AJ, van Andel G, van Helden SH, et al. . Effect of a comprehensive surgical safety system on patient outcomes. N Engl J Med. (2010) 363:1928–37. 10.1056/NEJMsa0911535
    1. McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S, van Haselen R, Griffin M, Fisher P. The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol. (2007) 7:30. 10.1186/1471-2288-7-30
    1. Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. (2004) 10:307–12. 10.1111/j.2002.384.doc.x
    1. Uschner D, Schindler D, Heussen N, Hilgers R-D. randomizeR: an R package for the assessment and implementation of randomization in clinical trials. J Stat Softw. (2018) 85:1–22. 10.18637/jss.v085.i08
    1. Randmaa M, Swenne CL, Mårtensson G, Högberg H, Engström M. Implementing situation-background-assessment-recommendation in an anaesthetic clinic and subsequent information retention among receivers. Eur J Anaesthesiol. (2016) 33:172–8. 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000335
    1. Holtel M, Piwernetz K, Pilz S, Poimann H, Rode S, Stapenhorst K, Weber H. Alles Gesagt - Alles Verstanden? Eine Klinik, Eine Sprache: Sicher Kommunizieren Mit SBAR. f&w (2016). Available online at: (accessed August 8, 2020).
    1. Randmaa M, Mårtensson G, Leo Swenne C, Engström M. SBAR improves communication and safety climate and decreases incident reports due to communication errors in an anaesthetic clinic: a prospective intervention study. BMJ Open. (2014) 4:e004268. 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004268
    1. Müller M, Jürgens J, Redaèlli M, Klingberg K, Hautz WE, Stock S. Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. (2018) 8:e022202. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022202
    1. World Health Organization (WHO) . WHO-Kollaborationszentrum für Lösungskonzepte zur Patientensicherheit. (2007). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. Schyve PM, Brockway M, Carr M, Giuntoli A, Mcneily M, Reis P. The Joint Commission Guide to Improving Staff Communication, 2nd edn. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; (2009).
    1. von Dossow V, Zwissler B. Recommendations of the German Association of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) on structured patient handover in the perioperative setting. Anaesthesist. (2016) 65:1–4. 10.1007/s00101-016-0237-5
    1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement . SBAR Tool: Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation. (2020). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. United States . Department of Defense, United States. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, United States. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs). TRICARE Management Activity. TeamSTEPPS®: Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety. Pocket Guide. TRICARE. (2010). 35 p.
    1. Greenstein EA, Arora VM, Staisiunas PG, Banerjee SS, Farnan JM. Characterising physician listening behaviour during hospitalist handoffs using the HEAR checklist. BMJ Qual Saf . (2013) 22:203–9. 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001138
    1. Krankenhaus-Checkliste | Weisse Liste. Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. IntelliSpace Critical Care and Anesthesia. Philips Healthcare. Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, Bond CM, Hopewell S, Thabane L, et al. . CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. (2016) 2:64. 10.1186/s40814-016-0105-8
    1. Reed JF. Extension of Grizzle's classic crossover design. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. (2011) 10:322–8. 10.22237/jmasm/1304224080
    1. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat. (2005) 4:287–91. 10.1002/pst.185
    1. Cocks K, Torgerson DJ. Sample size calculations for pilot randomized trials: a confidence interval approach. J Clin Epidemiol. (2013) 66:197–201. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.002
    1. Browne RH. On the use of a pilot sample for sample size determination. Stat Med. (1995) 14:1933–40. 10.1002/sim.4780141709
    1. Effective Public Health Praxtice Project . Quality Assessment Tool for Quanitative Studies. (2003). Available online at: (accessed July 30, 2020).
    1. Reason J. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company; (1997). p. 252.
    1. Urbach DR, Govindarajan A, Saskin R, Wilton AS, Baxter NN. Introduction of Surgical Safety Checklists in Ontario, Canada. N Engl J Med. (2014) 370:1029–38. 10.1056/NEJMsa1308261

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj