Patient participation in nursing bedside handover: a systematic mixed-methods review

Background: Numerous reviews of nursing handover have been undertaken, but none have focused on the patients’ role. Objectives: To explore how patient participation in nursing shift-to-shift bedside handover can be enacted. Design: Systematic mixed-methods review. Data sources: Three search strategies were undertaken in July-August 2016: database searching, backwards citation searching and forward citation searching. To be included, papers had to either be research or quality improvement (QI) projects focusing on the patient role. Fifty-four articles were retrieved, including 21 studies and 25 QI projects. Review methods: Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken systematically by two reviewers. Research studies and QI projects were synthesised separately using thematic synthesis, then the results of this synthesis were combined using a mixed-method synthesis table. Results: Segregated synthesis of research of patients’ perceptions revealed two contrasting categories; (1) patient-centred handover and (2) nurse-centred handover. Segregated synthesis of research of nurses’ perceptions included three categories: (1) viewing the patient as an information resource; (2) dealing with confidential and sensitive information; and (3) enabling patient participation. The segregated synthesis of QI projects included two categories: (1) nurse barrier to enacting patient participation in bedside handover; and (2) involving patients in beside handover. Once segregated findings were configured, we discovered that the patients’ role in bedside handover involves contributing clinical information related to their care or progress, which may affect patient safety. Barriers relate to nurses’ concerns for the consequences of encouraging patient participation, worries for sharing confidential and sensitive information and feeling hesitant in changing their handover methods. The way nurses approach patients, and how patient-centred they are, constitute further potential barriers. Strategies to improve patient participation in handover include training nurses, making handovers predictable for patients and involving both patients and nurses throughout the change process. Conclusions: Using research and QI projects allowed diverse findings to expand each other and identify gaps between research and heuristic knowledge. Our review showed the tension between standardising handovers and making them predictable for patient participation, while promoting tailored and flexible handovers. Further investigation of this issue is required, to understand how to train nurses and ensure patients’ viewpoint is captured. Many barriers and strategies identified QI projects were from the nurse perspective, thus caution interpreting results is required. We recommend steps be taken in the future to ensure improved quality of QI projects

Archivos mexicanos de venereología y dermatología : órgano oficial de la Asociación Nacional de Venereología

Aim: The aim of this study was to explore the potential for one set of patient information for nursing handover and documentation. Background: Communication of patient information requires two processes in nursing: a verbal summary of the patients' care and another report within the nursing notes, creating duplication. Introduction: Advances in speech recognition technology have provided an opportunity to consider the practicality of one set of information at the nursing end-of-shift. Methods: We used content analysis to compare transcripts from 162 digitally recorded handovers and written nursing notes for similar patients within general medical-surgical wards from two metropolitan hospitals in Sydney Australia. Findings: Using the Nursing Handover Minimum Dataset analysis framework similar content [n=2109 (handover) n=1902 (nursing notes)] was found within the handovers and notes at the end-of-shift (7:00 am and 2:00 pm). Analysis of the overarching categories demonstrated the emphasis within the differing data sources as: patient identification (31%), care planning or interventions (25%), clinical history (13%), and clinical status (13%) for handover, vs. care planning (47%), clinical status (24%), and outcomes or goals of care (12%) for nursing notes. Discussion: This study has demonstrated that similar patient information is presented at handover and within documentation. Major categories are consistent with international nursing minimum datasets in use. Conclusion: We can use one set of patient information (within some limitations) for two purposes with system design, practice change and education. Experiments are currently being conducted trialling speech recognition within laboratory and clinical settings. Implications for Nursing and Health Policy: One set of patient information, verbally generated at handover delivering electronic documentation within one process, will transform international nursing policy for nursing handover and documentation

The quality of intensive care unit nurse handover related to end of life: a descriptive comparative international study

BACKGROUND: Quality ICU end-of-life-care has been found to be related to good communication. Handover is one form of communication that can be problematic due to lost or omitted information. A first step in improving care is to measure and describe it. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the quality of ICU nurse handover related to end-of-life care and to compare the practices of different ICUs in three different countries. DESIGN: This was a descriptive comparative study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted in seven ICUs in three countries: Australia (1 unit), Israel (3 units) and the UK (3 units). PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 157 handovers was studied. METHODS: Handover quality was rated based on the ICU End-of-Life Handover tool, developed by the authors. RESULTS: The highest levels of handover quality were in the areas of goals of care and pain management while lowest levels were for legal issues (proxy and advanced directives) related to end of life. Significant differences were found between countries and units in the total handover score (country: F(2,154)=25.97, p=<.001; unit: F(6,150)=58.24, p=<.001), for the end of life subscale (country: F(2, 154)=28.23, p<.001; unit: F(6,150)=25.25, p=<.001), the family communication subscale (country: F(2,154)=15.04, p=<.001; unit: F(6,150)=27.38, p=<.001), the family needs subscale (F(2,154)=22.33, p=<.001; unit: F(6,150)=42.45, p=<.001) but only for units on the process subscale (F(6,150)=8.98, p=<.001. The total handover score was higher if the oncoming RN did not know the patient (F(1,155)=6.51, p=<.05), if the patient was expected to die during the shift (F(1,155)=89.67, p=<.01) and if the family were present (F(1,155)=25.81, p=<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Practices of end-of-life-handover communication vary greatly between units. However, room for improvement exists in all areas in all of the units studied. The total score was higher when quality of care might be deemed at greater risk (if the nurses did not know the patient or the patient was expected to die), indicating that nurses were exercising some form of discretionary decision making around handover communication; thus validating the measurement tool