Volume 29, Issue 3 pp. 297-302
Original Research

Improving emergency department medical clinical handover: Barriers at the bedside

Gerrard Oren Marmor

Corresponding Author

Gerrard Oren Marmor

Emergency Department, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

School of Medicine, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Correspondence: Dr Gerrard Oren Marmor, Emergency Department, Canberra Hospital, Yamba Drive, Garran, ACT 2605, Australia. Email: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author
Michael Yonghong Li

Michael Yonghong Li

Emergency Department, Canberra Hospital, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 29 March 2017
Citations: 16
Gerrard Oren Marmor, MBBS, FACEM, Emergency Physician; Michael Yonghong Li, BMedSci (Hons), MBBS, Emergency Senior Resident Medical Officer.

Abstract

Objective

The present paper describes our experience of developing and piloting a best practice model of medical clinical handover. Secondary aims were to improve reliability of communication, identify negative effects on patient care and assess staff adherence and acceptance of the process.

Methods

We described existing handover practice. We designed and implemented a process incorporating bedside handover, the Identification, Situation, Background, Assessment, Requirements and Requests (ISBAR) tool and handover documentation. We audited the process and surveyed doctors before and after the intervention regarding their practice and preferences.

Results

Existing handover practice was remote from the patient, neither standardised nor documented. The new process resulted in a median 87% (95% CI 70.4–92.1) of handovers in the presence of the patient. ISBAR elements were consistently communicated, median 100% (95% CI 91.8–100). Risk events were directly identified in a median 8.3% (95% CI 0.0–13.8) of bedside handovers. Handover documentation did not improve. FACEM and registrar perception that bedside handover improves patient care fell from 71%, 80% to 56%, 58%, respectively. Preference for bedside handover fell from 79% and 80%, respectively, to being evenly divided between bedside and centralised models; 80.9% of respondents reported that ISBAR improved communication.

Conclusion

Bedside handover using ISBAR resulted in improved patient involvement, communication and a non-significant trend to improved patient safety. Despite a majority of doctors acknowledging these findings, preference remained for a centralised handover using ISBAR. Gaining staff acceptance of a process change is essential to its success. A barrier to acceptance could be that staff are time-poor. We suggest handover processes can be strengthened by adequate staffing and small, incremental improvements to existing models combined with auditing of outcomes.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.