Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review

Martin Müller, Jonas Jürgens, Marcus Redaèlli, Karsten Klingberg, Wolf E Hautz, Stephanie Stock, Martin Müller, Jonas Jürgens, Marcus Redaèlli, Karsten Klingberg, Wolf E Hautz, Stephanie Stock

Abstract

Objectives: Communication breakdown is one of the main causes of adverse events in clinical routine, particularly in handover situations. The communication tool SBAR (situation, background, assessment and recommendation) was developed to increase handover quality and is widely assumed to increase patient safety. The objective of this review is to summarise the impact of the implementation of SBAR on patient safety.

Design: A systematic review of articles published on SBAR was performed in PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO in January 2017. All original research articles on SBAR fulfilling the following eligibility criteria were included: (1) SBAR was implemented into clinical routine, (2) the investigation of SBAR was the primary objective and (3) at least one patient outcome was reported.

Setting: A wide range of settings within primary and secondary care and nursing homes.

Participants: A variety of heath professionals including nurses and physicians.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: Aspects of patient safety (patient outcomes) defined as the occurrence or incidence of adverse events.

Results: Eight studies with a before-after design and three controlled clinical trials performed in different clinical settings met the inclusion criteria. The objectives of the studies were to improve team communication, patient hand-offs and communication in telephone calls from nurses to physicians. The studies were heterogeneous with regard to study characteristics, especially patient outcomes. In total, 26 different patient outcomes were measured, of which eight were reported to be significantly improved. Eleven were described as improved but no further statistical tests were reported, and six outcomes did not change significantly. Only one study reported a descriptive reduction in patient outcomes.

Conclusions: This review found moderate evidence for improved patient safety through SBAR implementation, especially when used to structure communication over the phone. However, there is a lack of high-quality research on this widely used communication tool.

Trial registration: none.

Keywords: SBAR; adverse event; hand-off situation; interprofessional communication; patient safety.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: WEH has received payment from the AO Foundation Zürich for educational consultations and congress invitations from Mundipharma Basel.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the systematic review process. SBAR, situation, background, assessment, recommendation. *No additional studies were identified through screening of the references of the included articles.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Quality assessment of the included studies.

References

    1. Aspden P, Corrigan JM, Wolcott J, et al. . Patient safety: achieving a new standard for care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US), 2004.
    1. World Health Organisation. Conceptual Framework for the International Classification for Patient Safety. 2009. (accessed 10 Aug 2017).
    1. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. . Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991;324:370–6. 10.1056/NEJM199102073240604
    1. The Joint Commission. Sentinel event data: root causes by event type 2004–2014. 2014. (accessed 10 Aug 2017).
    1. Haller G, Laroche T, Clergue F. Évènements indésirables et problèmes de communication en périopératoire. Annales Françaises d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation 2011;30:923–9. 10.1016/j.annfar.2011.06.019
    1. Reader TW, Flin R, Mearns K, et al. . Interdisciplinary communication in the intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 2007;98:347–52. 10.1093/bja/ael372
    1. Burley D. Better communication in the emergency department. Emerg Nurse 2011;19:32–6. 10.7748/en2011.05.19.2.32.c8509
    1. Dayton E, Henriksen K. Communication failure: basic components, contributing factors, and the call for structure. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2007;33:34–47. 10.1016/S1553-7250(07)33005-5
    1. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. SBAR technique for communication: a situational briefing model. (accessed 9 Aug 2017).
    1. Nadzam DM. Nurses' role in communication and patient safety. J Nurs Care Qual 2009;24:184–8. 10.1097/01.NCQ.0000356905.87452.62
    1. National Patient Safety Agency. Recognising and responding appropriately to early signs of deterioration in hospitalised patients. London: National Patient Safety Agency, 2007.
    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: the SBAR concept. Anaesthesist 2016;65(Suppl 1):1–4. 10.1007/s00101-016-0237-5
    1. Santhanakrishnan M, Gash A, Hopper S, et al. . Improving quality of referral to consultation liaison service using SBAR communication tool to provide rapid and timely interventions to elderly patients in general hospital. Eur Geriatr Med 2013;4:S170 10.1016/j.eurger.2013.07.570
    1. Lee SY, Dong L, Lim YH, et al. . SBAR: towards a common interprofessional team-based communication tool. Med Educ 2016;50:1167–8. 10.1111/medu.13171
    1. Riesenberg LA, Leitzsch J, Little BW. Systematic review of handoff mnemonics literature. Am J Med Qual 2009;24:196–204. 10.1177/1062860609332512
    1. Dunsford J. Structured communication: improving patient safety with SBAR. Nurs Womens Health 2009;13:384–90. 10.1111/j.1751-486X.2009.01456.x
    1. Guise JM, Lowe NK. Do you speak SBAR? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2006;35:313–4. 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2006.00043.x
    1. Powell SK. SBAR—it’s not just another communication tool. Prof Case Manag 2007;12:195–6. 10.1097/01.PCAMA.0000282903.67672.fa
    1. Donahue M, Miller M, Smith L, et al. . A leadership initiative to improve communication and enhance safety. Am J Med Qual 2011;26:206–11. 10.1177/1062860610387410
    1. NHS Institute for Innovation Improvement. The handbook of quality and service improvement tools: NHS Institute for Innovation and Improvement Coventry, 2010:247–51.
    1. Landau S, Wellman LG. Small changes can streamline the handoff process in a staff-driven process improvement project. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2014;43(Suppl 1):S49 10.1111/1552-6909.12433
    1. Wathen B, Roth J, Dobyns E, et al. . 681. Crit Care Med 2013;41(12 Suppl 1):A167 10.1097/01.ccm.0000439919.05807.f6
    1. Farley H, Choy H, Ellicott A, et al. . 168: utilization of the situation-background-assessment-request, companion phones, and cell phones improves communication with consultants in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2009;54:S52 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.06.196
    1. Manias T, Tomlinson J. Implementation and evaluation of the sbar tool in the communication between medical staff in obstetrics. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2011;96:Fa131 10.1136/archdischild.2011.300157.30
    1. McCrory M, Aboumatar H, Hunt E. Communication during pediatric rapid response events: a survey of healthcare providers. Crit Care Med 2011;39:176.
    1. Raymond M, Harrison MC. The structured communication tool SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) improves communication in neonatology. S Afr Med J 2014;104:850–2. 10.7196/SAMJ.8684
    1. Renz SM, Boltz MP, Wagner LM, et al. . Examining the feasibility and utility of an SBAR protocol in long-term care. Geriatr Nurs 2013;34:295–301. 10.1016/j.gerinurse.2013.04.010
    1. Renz SM, Boltz MP, Capezuti E, et al. . Implementing an SBAR communication protocol: a quality improvement project. Ann Longterm Care 2015;23:27–31.
    1. Velji K, Baker GR, Fancott C, et al. . Effectiveness of an adapted SBAR communication tool for a rehabilitation setting. Healthc Q 2008;11(3 Spec No.):72–9.
    1. Gerard JC. The effect of a communication protocol implementation on nurse/physician collaboration and communication. Louisville: University of Louisville, 2011.
    1. Edwards C, Woodard EK. SBAR for maternal transports: going the extra mile. Nurs Womens Health 2008;12:515–20. 10.1111/j.1751-486X.2008.00385.x
    1. Beckett CD, Kipnis G. Collaborative communication: integrating SBAR to improve quality/patient safety outcomes. J Healthc Qual 2009;31:19–28.
    1. Albert B, Messina C, Parker M, et al. . 759. Crit Care Med 2012;40(12 Suppl 1):1–328. 10.1097/
    1. García-Sánchez MJ, Fernández-Guerrero C, López-Toribio P, et al. . [Quality of the anesthesiologist written record during the transfer of postoperative patients: influence of implementing a structured communication tool]. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 2014;61:6–14. 10.1016/j.redar.2013.09.010
    1. Mitchell C, Johnston D. Fast bleep audit—to determine the appropriateness of fast bleeps received and the quality of communication relayed. Anaesthesia 2014;69:47.
    1. Panesar RS, Albert B, Messina C, et al. . The effect of an electronic SBAR communication tool on documentation of acute events in the pediatric intensive care unit. Am J Med Qual 2016;31:64–8. 10.1177/1062860614553263
    1. Randmaa M, Mårtensson G, Leo Swenne C, et al. . 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. Woodhall LJ, Vertacnik L, McLaughlin M. Implementation of the SBAR communication technique in a tertiary center. J Emerg Nurs 2008;34:314–7. 10.1016/j.jen.2007.07.007
    1. Wyckoff A, Larsen K, Alexander R, et al. . Huntsman cancer hospital sbar project. Oncol Nurs Forum 2009;36:12.
    1. Zhu H, McCrea N, Kelsall W. G188 Improving the paediatric handover: quality, safety and SBAR. Arch Dis Child 2014;99:A82 10.1136/archdischild-2014-306237.192
    1. Christie P, Robinson H. Using a communication framework at handover to boost patient outcomes. Nurs Times 2009;105:13–15.
    1. Cornell P, Gervis MT, Yates L, et al. . Impact of SBAR on nurse shift reports and staff rounding. Medsurg Nurs 2014;23:334–42.
    1. Moseley BD, Smith JH, Diaz-Medina GE, et al. . Standardized sign-out improves completeness and perceived accuracy of inpatient neurology handoffs. Neurology 2012;79:1060–4. 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318265a698
    1. Thompson JE, Collett LW, Langbart MJ, et al. . Using the ISBAR handover tool in junior medical officer handover: a study in an Australian tertiary hospital. Postgrad Med J 2011;87:340–4. 10.1136/pgmj.2010.105569
    1. Sohi D, Scotney E, Sowerbutts H, et al. . Significantly improving the efficiency of communication in paediatrics. Arch Dis Child 2011;96:A90–A91. 10.1136/adc.2011.212563.210
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada 2008. 2010. (accessed 10 May 2018).
    1. Higgins J, Green S, Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.6. 4 edn Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006.
    1. Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, et al. . Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the cochrane collaboration risk of bias tool and the effective public health practice project quality assessment tool: methodological research. J Eval Clin Pract 2012;18:12–18. 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01516.x
    1. Field TS, Tjia J, Mazor KM, et al. . Randomized trial of a warfarin communication protocol for nursing homes: an SBAR-based approach. Am J Med 2011;124:179.e1–7. 10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.09.017
    1. Telem DA, Buch KE, Ellis S, et al. . Integration of a formalized handoff system into the surgical curriculum: resident perspectives and early results. Arch Surg 2011;146:89–93. 10.1001/archsurg.2010.294
    1. Haig KM, Sutton S, Whittington J. National Patient Safety Goals. SBAR: a shared mental model for improving communication between clinicians. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2006;32:167–75.
    1. Andreoli A, Fancott C, Velji K, et al. . Using SBAR to communicate falls risk and management in inter-professional rehabilitation teams. Healthc Q 2010;13(Spec No):94–101.
    1. Freitag M, Carroll VS. Handoff communication: using failure modes and effects analysis to improve the transition in care process. Qual Manag Health Care 2011;20:103–9. 10.1097/QMH.0b013e3182136f58
    1. Pineda RO. Improving patient outcomes and nurse satisfaction through nurse-to-nurse communication. Chester: Widener University, 2015.
    1. De Meester K, Verspuy M, Monsieurs KG, et al. . SBAR improves nurse–physician communication and reduces unexpected death: a pre and post intervention study. Resuscitation 2013;84:1192–6. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2013.03.016
    1. Jarboe DE. The effect of evaluating a quality improvement initiative on reducing hospital transfers of nursing home residents. Minneapolis: Walden University, 2015.
    1. Devereaux T, Devereaux T, Marchetti G, et al. . Condition-specific sbar effect on transfers, hospitalizations, and 30-day readmissions from long-term care to acute-care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2016;17:B25 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.12.078
    1. Donaldson MS, Corrigan JM, Kohn LT. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000.
    1. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.
    1. Sauter TC, Amylidi AL, Ricklin ME, et al. . Direct new oral anticoagulants in the emergency department: experience in everyday clinical practice at a Swiss university hospital. Eur J Intern Med 2016;29:e13–15. 10.1016/j.ejim.2015.12.009
    1. Cook D, West C. Perspective: Reconsidering the focus on “outcomes research” in medical education: a cautionary note. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll 2013;88:162–7.
    1. Hautz WE, Kämmer JE, Exadaktylos A, et al. . How thinking about groups is different from groupthink. Med Educ 2017;51:229 10.1111/medu.13137
    1. Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(Suppl 1):i85–i90. 10.1136/qshc.2004.010033
    1. Powell SM, Kimberly Hill R. My copilot is a nurse—using crew resource management in the OR. Aorn J 2006;83:178–202. 10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60239-1

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj