Do Digital Handover Checklists Influence the Clinical Outcome Parameters of Intensive Care Unit Patients? A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study.

Nina Verholen, Lina Vogt, Martin Klasen, Michelle Schmidt, Stefan Beckers, Gernot Marx, Saša Sopka
Author Information
  1. Nina Verholen: Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  2. Lina Vogt: Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  3. Martin Klasen: Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  4. Michelle Schmidt: Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  5. Stefan Beckers: Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  6. Gernot Marx: Department of Intensive Care Medicine and Intermediate Care, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
  7. Saša Sopka: Department of Anaesthesiology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Abstract

Clinical handovers have been identified as high-risk situations for medical treatment errors. It has been shown that handover checklists lead to a reduced rate of medical errors and mortality. However, the influence of handover checklists on essential patient outcomes such as prevalence of sepsis, mortality, and length of hospitalization has not yet been investigated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present pilot study was to estimate the effect of two different handover checklists on the 48 h sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and the feasibility of a respective clinical RCT. Outcome parameters and feasibility were investigated implementing and comparing an intervention with a control checklist. Single center two-armed cluster randomized prospective crossover pilot study. The study took place over three 1-month periods in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting at the University Hospital Aachen. Data from 1,882 patients on seven ICU wards were assessed, of which 1,038 were included in the analysis. A digital standardized handover checklist (ISBAR) was compared to a control checklist (VICUR). Primary outcome was the 2nd 24 h time window sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes were SOFA scores on the 3rd and 5th 24 h time window, mortality, reuptake, and length of stay; handover duration, degree of satisfaction, and compliance as feasibility-related outcomes. Different sepsis scores were observed only for the 1st 24 h time window after admission to the ICU, with higher values for ISBAR. With respect to the patient-centered outcomes, both checklists achieved similar results. Average handover duration was shorter for VICUR, whereas satisfaction and compliance were higher for ISBAR. However, overall compliance was low (25.4% for ISBAR and 15.8% for VICUR). Based on the results, a stratified randomization procedure is recommended for following RCTs, in which medical treatment errors should also be investigated as an additional variable. The use of control checklists is discouraged due to lower acceptance and compliance among healthcare practitioners. Measures should be undertaken to increase compliance with the use of checklists. Clinical outcome parameters should be carefully selected. ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier [NCT03117088]. Registered April 14, 2017.

Keywords

Associated Data

ClinicalTrials.gov | NCT03117088

References

  1. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Jul 03;7:30 [PMID: 17608932]
  2. N Engl J Med. 2005 Sep 29;353(13):1405-9 [PMID: 16192489]
  3. Stat Med. 1995 Sep 15;14(17):1933-40 [PMID: 8532986]
  4. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2008 Oct;34(10):563-70 [PMID: 18947116]
  5. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jun 28;356(26):2665-7 [PMID: 17596598]
  6. N Engl J Med. 2010 Nov 11;363(20):1928-37 [PMID: 21067384]
  7. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2011 Jan;50(1):57-63 [PMID: 20837612]
  8. Anaesthesist. 2016 Dec;65(Suppl 1):1-4 [PMID: 27900413]
  9. N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 28;351(18):1822-4 [PMID: 15509813]
  10. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307-12 [PMID: 15189396]
  11. BMJ Open. 2018 Aug 23;8(8):e022202 [PMID: 30139905]
  12. BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 21;4(1):e004268 [PMID: 24448849]
  13. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008 Jun;17(3):216-23 [PMID: 18519629]
  14. JAMA. 2013 Dec 4;310(21):2262-70 [PMID: 24302089]
  15. Anaesthesist. 2016 Jun;65(6):473-88 [PMID: 27273109]
  16. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jul;23(7):600-7 [PMID: 24811239]
  17. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016 Mar;33(3):172-8 [PMID: 26760400]
  18. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Mar;22(3):203-9 [PMID: 23258389]
  19. N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 6;371(19):1803-12 [PMID: 25372088]
  20. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2010 Feb;107(6):92-9 [PMID: 20204120]
  21. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020 Dec;29(12):980-987 [PMID: 32132145]
  22. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016 Oct 21;2:64 [PMID: 27965879]
  23. Int J Med Inform. 2013 Jul;82(7):580-92 [PMID: 23628146]
  24. J Public Health Res. 2015 Dec 17;4(3):666 [PMID: 26753165]
  25. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Feb;66(2):197-201 [PMID: 23195919]
  26. N Engl J Med. 2014 Mar 13;370(11):1029-38 [PMID: 24620866]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0handoverchecklistsstudycomplianceoutcomeshICUISBARClinicalmedicalerrorsmortalityinvestigatedpilotSOFAfeasibilitycontrolchecklistVICUR24timewindowtreatmentHoweverpatientsepsislengthrandomizedRCTsepsis-relatedorganfailureassessmentscoreOutcomeparameters1standardizedoutcomescoresdurationsatisfactionhigherresultsusehandoversidentifiedhigh-risksituationsshownleadreducedrateinfluenceessentialprevalencehospitalizationyetcontrolledtrialaimpresentestimateeffecttwodifferent48respectiveclinicalimplementingcomparinginterventionSinglecentertwo-armedclusterprospectivecrossovertookplacethree1-monthperiodsintensivecareunitsettingUniversityHospitalAachenData882patientssevenwardsassessed038includedanalysisdigitalcomparedPrimary2ndSecondary3rd5threuptakestaydegreefeasibility-relatedDifferentobserved1stadmissionvaluesrespectpatient-centeredachievedsimilarAverageshorterwhereasoveralllow254%158%BasedstratifiedrandomizationprocedurerecommendedfollowingRCTsalsoadditionalvariablediscourageddueloweracceptanceamonghealthcarepractitionersMeasuresundertakenincreasecarefullyselectedClinicalTrialsgovIdentifier[NCT03117088]RegisteredApril142017DigitalHandoverChecklistsInfluenceParametersIntensiveCareUnitPatients?RandomizedControlledPilotStudyISBAR3safetydesign

Similar Articles

Cited By