Perspectives of clinical handover processes: a multi-site survey across different health professionals

被引:44
|
作者
Manias, Elizabeth [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Geddes, Fiona [4 ]
Watson, Bernadette [5 ]
Jones, Dorothy [6 ]
Della, Phillip [4 ]
机构
[1] Deakin Univ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Burwood, Vic 3125, Australia
[2] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Hlth Sci, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia
[3] Royal Melbourne Hosp, Dept Med, Parkville, Vic 3050, Australia
[4] Curtin Univ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Bentley, WA, Australia
[5] Univ Queensland, Sch Psychol, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[6] Curtin Univ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Clin Safety & Qual, Bentley, WA, Australia
基金
澳大利亚研究理事会;
关键词
adverse events; clinical handover; clinical improvement; communication; health professional disciplines; survey; IMPROVING COMMUNICATION; NURSING HANDOVER; CARE; PATIENT; BEDSIDE; INVOLVEMENT; INFORMATION; IMPROVEMENT; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1111/jocn.12986
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
Aims and objectives. To examine the perspectives of health professionals of different disciplines about clinical handover. Background. Ineffective handovers can cause major problems relating to the lack of delivery of appropriate care. Design. A prospective, cross-sectional design was conducted using a survey about clinical handover practices. Methods. Health professionals employed in public metropolitan hospitals, public rural hospitals and community health centres were involved. The sample comprised doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, including physiotherapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians and midwives employed in Western Australia, New South Wales, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. The survey sought information about health professionals' experiences about clinical handover; their perceived effectiveness of clinical handover; involvement of patients and family members; health professionals' ability to confirm understanding and to clarify clinical information; role modelling behaviour of health professionals; training needs; adverse events encountered and possibilities for improvements. Results. In all, 707 health professionals participated (response rate = 14%). Represented professions were nursing (60%), medicine (22%) and allied health (18%). Many health professionals reported being aware of adverse events where they noticed poor handover was a significant cause. Differences existed between health professions in terms of how effectively they gave handover, perceived effectiveness of bedside handover vs. nonbedside handover, patient and family involvement in handover, respondents' confirmation of understanding handover from their perspective, their observation of senior health professionals giving feedback to junior health professionals, awareness of adverse events and severity of adverse events relating to poor handovers. Conclusions. Complex barriers impeded the conduct of effective handovers, including insufficient opportunities for training, lack of role modelling, and lack of confidence and understanding about handover processes.
引用
收藏
页码:80 / 91
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Hospitalist Perceptions of Electronic Health Records: a Multi-site Survey
    Czernik, Zuzanna
    Yu, Amy
    Pell, Jonathan
    Feinbloom, David
    Jones, Christine D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2022, 37 (01) : 269 - 271
  • [2] Hospitalist Perceptions of Electronic Health Records: a Multi-site Survey
    Zuzanna Czernik
    Amy Yu
    Jonathan Pell
    David Feinbloom
    Christine D. Jones
    [J]. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2022, 37 : 269 - 271
  • [3] INTEGRATING LANGUAGE AND PROCESSES IN A MULTI-SITE DELIRIUM INTERVENTION STUDY WITH DIFFERENT ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS (EHRS)
    Fick, D. M.
    Ariosto, D.
    Mion, L. C.
    Yevchak, A.
    Inouye, S. K.
    [J]. GERONTOLOGIST, 2012, 52 : 506 - 507
  • [4] Essential Anatomy for Clerkships and Electives - A Multi-Site Survey of Clinical Educators
    Harmon, Derek
    Nankin, Mark
    Martindale, James
    Farias, Anna
    Cotter, Meghan M.
    Royer, Danielle
    Topping, Daniel B.
    Latacha, Kimberly
    Zumwalt, Ann
    Lopez, Elisabeth K. N.
    McNary, Thomas
    Giannaris, F. Lela
    Kar, Rekha
    Sakaguchi, Alan
    Notebaert, Andrew
    [J]. FASEB JOURNAL, 2019, 33
  • [5] Site engagement for multi-site clinical trials
    Goodlett, Dana
    Hung, Anna
    Feriozzi, Ashley
    Lu, Hien
    Bekelman, Justin E.
    Mullins, C. Daniel
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 19
  • [6] The importance of the verbal shift handover report: A multi-site case study
    Randell, Rebecca
    Wilson, Stephanie
    Woodward, Peter
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2011, 80 (11) : 803 - 812
  • [7] Progress in centralised ethics review processes: Implications for multi-site health evaluations
    Prosser, Brenton
    Davey, Rachel
    Gibson, Diane
    [J]. EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING, 2015, 49 : 117 - 123
  • [8] A multi-site survey of forensic nursing assessment
    Walker, Helen
    Tulloch, Lindsay
    Boa, Karen
    Ritchie, Gordon
    Thompson, John
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PRACTICE, 2019, 21 (02) : 124 - 138
  • [9] RESIDENT PERCEPTION OF LASER TRAINING AND EDUCATION; SURVEY FROM A MULTI-SITE INSTITUTION ACROSS SPECIALTIES
    Hill, Hannah
    Ochoa, Shari A.
    [J]. LASERS IN SURGERY AND MEDICINE, 2019, 51 : S26 - S26
  • [10] Perspectives on Data Management in web-based multi-site clinical trials in stroke
    Sherman, Alexander
    Wallace, Karen
    Yu, Hong
    Belabbas, Cherifia
    Cudkowicz, Merit
    [J]. NEUROLOGY, 2008, 70 (11) : A16 - A16