Eggins and Slade: Communication in Clinical Handover: Improving the Safety and Quality of the Patient Experience

Communication in Clinical Handover: Improving the Safety and Quality of the Patient Experience




«I’ve seen many, many examples of things that go terribly wrong, because the communication of handover information has failed in some way».

(Medical director, high dependency unit in an Australian hospital)1

Improved longevity and changing lifestyles are putting pressure on healthcare systems around the world. Hospitals must manage rapidly growing numbers of patients, who increasingly present with complex co-morbidities and chronic conditions. One indicator of these pressures is the high rate of avoidable patient harm in hospitals, which stands at 10% in developed countries and is significantly higher in developing nations.2 In some developed countries patients are 40 times more likely to die as a result of being admitted to an acute care hospital than in a traffic accident.3 It is estimated that in Australia alone, 500,000 people per year suffer from avoidable harm in hospitals.4

Ineffective communication is now a well-recognised contributor to patient harm in hospitals.1,5-8 For some years, research has been suggesting that clinical handover is a critical site for communication problems. For example, a recent largescale European Commission project has found that handover communication is responsible for 25% to 40% of adverse events.9

Clinical handover (clinical handoff in North America) refers to the transfer of professional responsibility and accountability for some or all aspects of care for a patient, or group of patients, to another person or professional group on a temporary or permanent basis.10 Estimates put the number of handovers each year at over 300 million in the USA,11,12 more than 40 million in Australia and over 100 million in England,13,14 making handover arguably the most frequent and significant communicative process between clinicians in the delivery of patient care.

Clinical handover is, by definition, an inherently communicative event. Handovers can only be achieved through linguistic exchange, by clinicians talking and writing to one another. So what goes wrong when clinicians communicate during handover? International research has pointed to the following problems: i) lack of systematic structure, including incomplete handovers;15,16 ii) lack of adequate explanations about what has and will be done for the patient;8,17 iii) excessive reliance on memory without reference to written documentation;18-21 iv) lack of patient involvement;22,23 v) poor quality of written medical records;24-26 vi) multiple clinician involvement in a patient’s continuity of care.1

Mounting evidence has led the World Health Organization to list improved communication in handover in its top five patient safety solutions.2 Less clear is just how improved communication is to be achieved.

One response has been through moves to standardise the structure of handover communication. The most prevalent tool recommended is SBAR and its variants (iSBAR, iSoBAR etc).27-30 In Australia the national standard on clinical handover specifically recommends the use of a standardised handover protocol.31

Structural recommendations have been accompanied by a more general emphasis on including the patient and their carers in the handover. Healthcare guidelines now promote models of patient-centred care, including in handover.32-36 Research has linked such care to greater levels of patient satisfaction, better understanding of diagnosis and treatment, more informed participation in consultations, and higher adherence to treatment recommendations.36-39

However, evidence from clinicians’ accounts,1,8,40 adverse incident reports and coronial inquiries indicates that the situation is not improving.41

Efforts to improve handover communication have been hampered by the lack of empirical communication data of handover events. From surveys we know what people think goes wrong in handover. From interviews we know what people say they do or don’t do in handover, and from observational research we have descriptions of what observers saw and heard. But we have very few actual examples of clinical handover interactions, spoken and written. In the absence of a solid empirical base, policies and intervention strategies designed to improve communication in clinical handover raise many unanswered questions.

For example, the lack of actual communicative data makes it impossible to determine just how practical and effective standardised handover protocols are. Anecdotal and interview responses suggest that compliance is low,42 but to verify and understand this we need actual examples of handover interactions. What problems, if any, might clinicians have in applying standardised protocols? Are these problems to do with the communicative design of the protocols? Or do they lie in cultural resistance or inadequate training and support for the new practices?

Similarly, empirical research into patient-centred communication in handover is scant. What does patient-centred communication really mean? How do clinicians do patient-centred communication in the real world of the hospital ward? Does patient-centred communication during handover actually affect patient health outcomes?

Audio and video recorded data of routine handover interactions in real hospital contexts can help us answer these questions and can provide an evidence base from which to develop realistic policies and protocols. Our large interdisciplinary study across four states in Australia drew on 829 audio and video recorded handover events from diverse medical, mental health, nursing and allied health hospital contexts.1 Socio-linguistic discourse analyses revealed the accumulation of three types of risk factors – contextual, informational and interactional – and led to the following recommendations to improve patient safety and satisfaction.

Manage the impact of the hospital context on handover communication. Our data show that the contextual constraints of the hospital environment often mitigate against effective communication generally and can compromise clinical handover in particular. For effective handovers, clinicians and managers need to manage the key contextual factors of participants (who should be present), scheduling (how much time should be allowed), resources (availability of patient electronic or print records) and environment (noise, interruptions and space). Failure to manage these dimensions amounts to tacit tolerance of risk.

Recognise that effective handovers involve two simultaneous dimensions of communication: the interactional and the informational. Most studies of handover concentrate on handover’s informational content. Yet actual communicative data reminds us that, unless the handover interaction unfolds collaboratively, the value of the information transfer may well be dubious. Our data show that far from wasting time, interaction is highly time-efficient. The immediacy and reciprocity of interaction mean that problems and errors can be noticed and resolved quickly. However, this can only happen if the patient and the receiving team are encouraged to ask questions, query, challenge and add information, and if clinicians giving handover actively check that their messages have been understood. Cultural shift may be needed to recognise the value of interactivity. We need to replace the conventional adage that a short handover is a good handover with an interactive handover is a safe handover.

Address informational risks through flexible but standardised protocols. Our understanding of effective communication, and the evidence from our data, indicate that if people consistently follow a structured sequence, they have a better chance of communicating complex information clearly.31 A structured protocol helps the provider know what information to gather and organise; it helps the receiver to tune in, anticipate, expect, and therefore notice and query gaps immediately. A shared structure can therefore minimise unnecessary interruptions while also avoiding the risks of deferring and possibly forgetting to follow up queries. We recommend that clinicians use the iSoBAR protocol as glossed by Porteous and colleagues,16 when delivering both spoken and written handovers, but any similarly structured protocol could be equally effective.

Address interactional risks by implementing an interactional protocol. Handover guidelines and protocols must be based on an informed understanding of how interaction works and how interactional risks can be managed. Creating an active, participatory handover team, resisting interruptions, managing digressions, and making written handover documents durable, compliant and legible promote shared understanding and collaborative problem solving. Involving the patient by applying an interactional protocol such as C-A-R-E (Connect, Ask, Respond, Empathise)43,44 ensures that clinicians get the patient’s story right and negotiate treatment decisions the patient understands and is motivated to comply with.

Ensure clinical staff receive training in explicit clinical handover communication strategies and frameworks. Our study revealed that low compliance with iSBAR and reluctance to participate actively or involve the patient in handover arose principally from lack of awareness and limited training in handover skills. Even just a two-hour training module produced statistically significant behavioural change.44 Underpinning each of these recommendations is recognition that many problems in clinical handover are systemic. Our research suggested that tolerance for handover risk factors often becomes naturalised as a routine part of hospital health care. The assumption by individual clinicians and by organisations that later more effective handovers will compensate for earlier inadequacies is a gamble. As James Reason’s Swiss cheese model of human error captures so powerfully, when errors in different parts of the system overlap, catastrophic outcomes become a real possibility.45 However, systemic change, policy, guidelines, interventions and discussions of clinical handover need to be informed by linguistically sound models of effective communication that are based on actual communicative performance in real hospital contexts.

References

1. 

S Eggins, F Geddes, D Slade, eds. Effective communication in clinical handover – from research to practice. Patient safety 16. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton; in press.

2. 

World Health Organization. 10 Facts on patient safety. 2014. Available form: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/patient_safety/en/.

3. 

WB Runciman, J. Moller Iatrogenic injury in Australia. A report prepared by the Australian Patient Safety Foundation for the National Health Priorities and Quality Branch of the Department of Health and Aged Care of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, 2001. Available from: http://www.apsf.net.au/dbfiles/Iatrogenic_Injury.pdf.

4. 

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Emergency department care 2014-15 Australian hospital statistics. AIHW, 2015. Available from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=60129553618.

5. 

LS Lingard, S Espin, S Whyte. Communication failures in the operating room: An observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:330-4.

6. 

M Leonard, S Graham, D. Bonacum The human factor: The critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13:85-90.

7. 

Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. National patient safety goals. Joint Commission, 2005. Available from: www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatientSafetyGoals/.

8. 

D Slade, M Manidis, J McGregor. Communicating in hospital emergency

9. 

P Barach. Handover: improving the continuity of patient care through identification and implementation of novel patient handover processes in Europe. Project website, 2015. Available from: http://www.handover.eu/index.html

10. 

Australian Medical Association. Safe handover: safe patients. AMA Clinical Handover Guide. AMA, Sydney, 2006. Available from: http://ama.com.au/node

11. 

American Hospitals Association. Fast Facts. AHA, 2014. Available from: http://www.aha.org/research/rc/stat-studies/fast-facts.shtml.

12. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Hospitals Discharge Survey: 2010 table, number and rate of hospital discharges. CDCP, 2010. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhds/1general/2010gen1_agesexalos.pdf.

13. 

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). Health care utilisation: hospital aggregates. OECD, 2011. Available from: http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx.

14. 

Health & Social Care Information Centre. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care 2012–2013. HSCIC, 2013. Available from: http://www.hscic.gov.uk.

15. 

DT Bomba, R. Prakash A description of handover processes in an Australian public hospital. Austral Health Rev 2005;29:68-79.

16. 

JM Porteous, EG Stewart-Wynne, M Connolly, PF Crommelin. iSoBAR: a concept and handover checklist: the National Clinical Handover Initiative. Med J Austral 2009;190:152-6.

17. 

F Tschan, NK Semmer, A Gurtner. Explicit reasoning, confirmation bias, and illusory transactive memory: a simulation study of group medical decision making. Small Group Res 2009;40:271-300.

18. 

R Wilson. Improving clinical handover in emergency departments. Emerg Nurse 2011;19:22-6.

19. 

J Matic, PM Davidson, Y. Salamonson Review: bringing patient safety to the forefront through structured computerisation during clinical handover. J Clin Nurs 2010;20:184-9.

20. 

E Dayton, K. Henriksen Communication failure: basic components, contributing factors and the call for structure. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safety 2007;33:34-47.

21. 

SM Borowitz, LA Waggoner-Fountain, EJ Bass, RM Sledd. Adequacy of information transferred at resident sign-out (inhospital handover of care): a prospective survey. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:6-10.

22. 

R Wilson. Improving clinical handover in emergency departments. Emerg Nurse 2011;19:22-6.

23. 

AN Makaryus, EA Friedman. Patients’ understanding of their treatment plans and diagnosis at discharge. Mayo Clin Proc 2005;80:991-4.

24. 

M Hardey, S Payne, P. Coleman Scraps’: hidden nursing information and its influence on the delivery of care. J Adv Nurs 2000; 32:208-14.

25. 

D Dowding. Examining the effects that manipulating information given in the change of shift report has on nurses’ care planning ability. J Adv Nurs 2001;33:836-46.

26. 

MJW Thomas, CJ Pirone, P. Turner a guide to the safe use of electronic clinical handover tools. Adelaide: South Australian Health; 2009.

27. 

M Monroe. SBAR: a structured human factors communication technique. Healthbeat. Healthcare Practice Specialty Newsletter (Spring issue), American Society of Safety Engineers, 2006.

28. 

Institute for Healthcare Improvement. SBAR Communication Technique. IHI, 2015. Available from: http://www.ihi.org/Topics/SBARCommunicationTechnique/Pages/default.aspx.

29. 

National Health Service Modernisation Agency Hospital at night-patient safety risk assessment guide. NHS Modernisation Agency. 2005. Available from: http://www.nrls.npsa.nhs.uk/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=61694&type=full&servicetype=Attachment.

30. 

World Health Organization Conceptual framework for the international classification for patient safety Version 1.0 for use in field testing. Geneva: WHO; 2007.

31. 

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Safety and Quality Improvement Guide Standard 6: Clinical Handover (October 2012). Sydney: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2012.

32. 

DH Lau. Patient empowerment: a patient-centred approach to improve care. Hong Kong Med J 2002;8:372-4.

33. 

UK Department of Health Treating patients and service users with respect dignity and compassion. 2013. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/treating-patients-and-service-users-with-respect-dignity-and-compassion.

34. 

B. McBrien Translating change: the development of a person-centred triage training programme for emergency nurses. Int Emerg Nurs 2009;17:31-7.

35. 

DM McCarthy, BA Buckley, KG Engel. Understanding patient-provider conversations: what are we talking about? Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:441-8.

36. 

SS McMillan, E Kendall, A Sav. Patient-centred approaches to health care: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Med Care Res Rev 2013;70:567-96.

37. 

A Ekwall. Acuity and anxiety from the patient’s perspective in the emergency department. J Emerg Nurs 2013;39:534-8.

38. 

Carceles MD Perez, JL Gironda, E Osuna. Is the right to information fulfilled in an emergency department? Patients’ perceptions of the care provided. J Eval Clin Pract 2010;16:456-63.

39. 

U Nitzan, E Hirsch, G Walter. Comprehension and companionship in the emergency department as predictors of treatment adherence. Austral Psychiatry 2012;20:112-6.

40. 

E Chandler, D Slade, J Pun. Communication in Hong Kong accident and emergency departments: the clinicians’ perspectives. Glob Qual Nurs J 2015;1-11.

41. 

CP Landrigan, GJ Parry, CB Bones. Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. New Engl J Med 2010;23:363.

42. 

J McGregor, M. Lee, D Slade, R. Dunston Effective clinical handover communication: improving patient safety, experiences and outcomes, pilot study report. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney; 2011.

43. 

S Eggins, D. Slade Contrasting discourse styles and barriers to patient participation in bedside nursing handovers. Commun Med [in press].

44. 

D Slade, S Eggins, K Murray, F. Wong Effects of nurses’ training on bedside handovers: a two-part research study in an Australian hospital. (in preparation)

45. 

JT Reason. Human error. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Abstract views:
3436

Views:
PDF
1134
HTML
2104

Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM


Copyright (c) 2015 Suzanne Eggins, Diana Slade

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
 
© PAGEPress 2008-2017     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185