Implementing situation-background-Assessment-recommendation in an anaesthetic clinic and subsequent information retention among receivers

European Journal of Anaesthesiology

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 172-178

  Randmaa, Maria ^a,b,c   Swenne, Christine L ^a,c   Mårtensson, Gunilla ^a,c   Högberg, Hans ^a   Engström, Maria ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GÄVLE   (Sweden)

^b UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHETIC AGENT;

ADULT; ARTICLE; ASSESSMENT OF HUMANS; AUDIO RECORDING; CLINICAL HANDOVER; CONTROLLED STUDY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; INTERVENTION STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL STAFF; MULTICENTER STUDY; OPERATING ROOM; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; POSTANESTHESIA CARE; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RECALL; SITUATION BACKGROUND ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATION; SWEDEN; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; EARLY INTERVENTION; FEMALE; HOSPITAL DEPARTMENT; MALE; PROCEDURES; RECOVERY ROOM; STANDARDS;

ANESTHESIA DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL; CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; EARLY MEDICAL INTERVENTION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATIENT CARE TEAM; PATIENT HANDOFF; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RECOVERY ROOM;

EID: 84957092321     PISSN: 02650215     EISSN: 13652346     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000335     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Greenberg CC, Regenbogen SE, Studdert DM, et al. Patterns of communication breakdowns resulting in injury to surgical patients. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204:533-540.
2. Nagpal K, Vats A, Ahmed K, et al. An evaluation of information transfer through the continuum of surgical care: A feasibility study. Ann Surg 2010; 252:402-407.
3. Kluger MT, Bullock MF. Recovery room incidents: A review of 419 reports from the Anaesthetic Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS). Anaesthesia 2002; 57:1060-1066.
4. White AA, Pichert JW, Bledsoe SH, et al. Cause and effect analysis of closed claims in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:1031-1038.
5. World Health Organisation. WHO Patient Safety Solutions volume 1, solution 3, May 2007. Available at http://www.who.int/patientsafety/solutions/patientsafety/PS-Solution3.pdf. [Accessed 13 August 2012].
6. Flemming D, Hubner 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; 82:580-592.
7. Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: The critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Healthcare 2004; 13 (Suppl 1):i85-i90.
8. Jeffcott SA, Evans SM, Cameron PA, et al. Improving measurement in clinical handover. Qual Saf Healthcare 2009; 18:272-277.
9. Manser T. Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: A review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009; 53:143-151.
10. Nagpal K, Abboudi M, Fischler L, et al. Evaluation of postoperative handover using a tool to assess information transfer and teamwork. Ann Surg 2011; 253:831-837.
11. Siddiqui N, Arzola C, Iqbal M, et al. Deficits in information transfer between anaesthesiologist and postanaesthesia care unit staff: An analysis of patient handover. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2012; 29:438-445.
12. Nagpal K, Arora S, Abboudi M, et al. Postoperative handover: problems, pitfalls, and prevention of error. Ann Surg 2010; 252:171-176.
13. Nagpal K, Vats A, Ahmed K, et al. A systematic quantitative assessment of risks associated with poor communication in surgical care. Arch Surg 2010; 145:582-588.
14. Rosenstein AH, ODaniel M. Impact and implications of disruptive behavior in the perioperative arena. J Am Coll Surg 2006; 203:96-105.
15. Smith AF, Mishra K. Interaction between anaesthetists, their patients, and the anaesthesia team. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105:60-68.
16. Chen JG, Wright MC, Smith PB, et al. Adaptation of a postoperative handoff communication process for children with heart disease: A quantitative study. Am J Med Qual 2011; 26:380-386.
17. Moller TP, Madsen MD, Fuhrmann L, Ostergaard D. Postoperative handover: characteristics and considerations on improvement: A systematic review. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013; 30:229-242.
18. Foster S, Manser T. The effects of patient handoff characteristics on subsequent care: A systematic review and areas for future research. Acad Med 2012; 87:1105-1124.
19. Gordon M, Findley R. Educational interventions to improve handover in healthcare: A systematic review. Med Educ 2011; 11:1081-1089.
20. Dowding D. Examining the effects that manipulating information given in the change of shift report has on nurses care planning ability. J Adv Nurs 2001; 33:836-846.
21. Talbot R, Bleetman A. Retention of information by emergency department staff at ambulance handover: do standardised approaches work? Emerg Med J 2007; 24:539-542.
22. Scott LA, Brice JH, Baker CC, Shen P. An analysis of paramedic verbal reports to physicians in the emergency department trauma room. Prehosp Emerg Care 2003; 7:247-251.
23. Pickering BW, Hurley K, Marsh B. Identification of patient information corruption in the intensive care unit: using a scoring tool to direct quality improvements in handover. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2905-2912.
24. Arenas A, Tabaac BJ, Fastovets G, Patil V. Undivided attention improves postoperative anesthesia handover recall. Adv Med Educ Pract 2014; 5:215-220.
25. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions. SBAR for structured information. Available at http://skl.se/4.535f453b144f9c99a8383fb9.html. [Accessed 13 January 2014].
26. Kazdin AE. Research design in clinical psychology, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2003.
27. Li SY, Magrabi F, Coiera E. A systematic review of the psychological literature on interruption and its patient safety implications. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19:6-12.
28. Chisholm CD, Collison EK, Nelson DR, Cordell WH. Emergency department workplace interruptions: Are emergency physicians interruptdriven and multitasking? Acad Emerg Med 2000; 7:1239-1243.
29. Segall N, Bonifacio AS, Schroeder RA, et al. Can we make postoperative patient handovers safer? A systematic review of the literature. Anesth Analg 2012; 115:102-115.
30. Li SY, Blandford A, Cairns P, Young RM. The effect of interruptions on postcompletion and other procedural errors: An account based on the activation-basedgoalmemorymodel.JExpPsycholAppl2008;14:314-328.
31. Altmann EM, Trafton JG. Timecourse of recovery from task interruption: data and a model. Psychon Bull Rev 2007; 14:1079-1084.
32. Baddeley A. What is memory? In: Baddeley AD, Eysenck MW, Anderson M, editors. Memory hove. East Sussex; New York: Psychology Press; 2009. pp. 1-17.
33. Eysenck M. Prospective memory. In: Baddeley AD, Eysenck MW, Anderson M, editors. Memory hove. East Sussex; New York: Psychology Press; 2009. pp. 343-356.
34. Ashcroft DM, Quinlan P, Blenkinsopp A. Prospective study of the incidence, nature and causes of dispensing errors in community pharmacies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2005; 14:327-332.
35. Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, et al. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170:683-690.
36. Randmaa M, Martensson G, Leo Swenne C, Engstrom 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.