Handover Between Anaesthetists and Post-anaesthetic Care Unit Nursing Staff Using Isbar Principles: A Quality Improvement Study
Keywords:
handover, anaesthetist, post-anaesthetic care, post-anaesthetic nurseAbstract
A structured approach to communication between health care professionals contains introduction/identification; situation; background; assessment and request/recommendation (ISBAR).
ISBAR was introduced into the postanaesthetic care unit (PACU) of a large Victorian health service in 2013. The aim of this study was to measure the effect of an education program on ISBAR compliance.
Method: A pre/post-test design using a 14-item audit tool was used to measure compliance to ISBAR before and after an education intervention in two acute hospitals in Melbourne, Victoria. The intervention consisted of one 30-minute education session to anaesthetists, and two 30-minute education sessions to PACU nurses, combined with visual cues using ISBAR wall posters.
Results: In Hospital A, significant improvement from pre- to post-audit was found in the items of cardiovascular assessment (χ2 (1) = 4.06, p < .05), respiratory assessment (χ2 (1) = 12.85, p < .01), analgesia assessment and actions (Fisher’s exact test p < .05) and responsibility + referral (χ2 (1) = 4.44, p < .05). For Hospital B significant improvement was found in communication difficulties (χ2 (2) = 13.55, p < .01) and significant decreased performance was found in respiratory assessment (χ2 (1) = 8.98, p < .01) and responsibility + referral (χ2 (1) = 13.26, p < .01).
Implication for practice: The results from this study cohort suggest an augmented education program may produce mixed results for ISBAR compliance. More than education and visual tools may be required to improve PACU ISBAR compliance.
References
National Safety and Quality Health
Service Standards: Australian
Commission on Safety and Quality in
Health Care — Standard 6: Clinical
Handover — Safety and Quality
Improvement Guide, 2012. Canberra:
Australian Government.
Botti M, Bucknall T, Cameron P,
Johnstone MJ, Redley B, Evans S &
Jeffcott S (2009). Examining
communication and team
performance during clinical
handover in a complex environment:
the private sector post anaesthetic
care unit. Medical Journal of
Australia, Vol. 190, No. 11, S157–
Segall N, Bonifacio AS, Schroeder RA,
Barbeito A, Rogers D, Thornlow DK,
... & Mark JB (2012). Can we make
postoperative patient handovers safer?
A systematic review of the literature.
Anesthesia & Analgesia, Vol. 115, No.
, pp. 102–115.
Anumakonda V, Doijode S &
Bhaskaran S (2011). A prospective
audit of multidisciplinary handover
(MDHO) of responsibility for patients
in the post anaesthetic care unit in a
District General Hospital (DGH):
Patient safety perceptive. European
Journal of Anaesthesiology, Vol. 28,
Suppl. 48, p. 215.
Nagdeve N & Kada VK (2011).
Quality of handover of patients to the
postanaesthetic care unit staff:
AP1–2. European Journal of
Anaesthesiology, Vol. 28, p. 214.
Australian Commission on Safety and
Quality in Healthcare: OSSIE Guide to
Clinical Handover Improvement
www.safetyandquality. gov.au/
wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ossie.
pdf Retrieved 10 July 2015.
Western Health (2014). Clinical
Handover. Policy code P-CC5.2
inside.wh.org.au/policies-proceduresforms/
WHDocuments/Clinical
Handover.docx Retrieved 10 July
Gill SD, Hughes A, McCall-White M,
Pascoe H (2014). Clinical Handover:
An Audit from Australia. AMJ, Vol. 7,
No. 9, pp. 363–371.
Watson BM, Manias E, Geddes F,
Della P & Jones D (2015). An analysis
of clinical handover miscommunication
using a language and social psychology
approach. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, Online before print
May 14, DOI:
X15586200.
