
doi: 10.1111/pan.12199
pmid: 23683085
SummaryBackgroundIneffective communications among healthcare providers are common and increases the risk of medical errors. During the perioperative period, multiple handoffs occur within a short period of time, and failure to convey important patient information can compromise safety. We used quality improvement methodology to improve the reliability of our handoffs in the operating room and postanesthesia care unit (PACU).MethodsTwo quality improvement teams were developed to focus on the intraoperative and postanesthesia handoff processes. Key driver diagrams and ‘smart aims’ were developed for each process based on feedback from anesthesia and nursing staff, and handoff checklists were developed and revised using multiple plan‐do‐study‐act cycles. Data on the reliability of the handoff processes were obtained prior to initiation of the projects and throughout the 6‐month project period.ResultsThe reliability of intraoperative anesthesia handoffs improved from 20% to 100% with use of the intraoperative handoff checklist. Similarly, with the introduction of a standardized PACU checklist, the reliability of PACU handoffs improved from 59% to greater than 90%.ConclusionWe utilized quality improvement methodology to develop and implement standardized checklists for handoffs of care in the operating room and PACU. Acceptance of and adherence to the standardized handoff protocols dramatically increased the quality and reliability of our handoff process.
Operating Rooms, Intraoperative Care, Patient Handoff, Reproducibility of Results, Continuity of Patient Care, Hospitals, Pediatric, Quality Improvement, Checklist, Anesthesia Recovery Period, Humans, Anesthesia, Child, Recovery Room
Operating Rooms, Intraoperative Care, Patient Handoff, Reproducibility of Results, Continuity of Patient Care, Hospitals, Pediatric, Quality Improvement, Checklist, Anesthesia Recovery Period, Humans, Anesthesia, Child, Recovery Room
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 83 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
