Improving communication of important information using the SBARD tool

Vlitos, Katherine; Kamara, Stania

doi:10.7748/mhp.2016.e1062

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We excluded 6 articles judged to have critical risk of bias [18][19][20][21][22][23] (see online supplemental appendix B table 1), leaving a total of 28 articles reporting 27 studies (figure 1). These included 3 RCTs, 24-26 6 controlled before-after studies, [27][28][29][30][31][32] and 19 uncontrolled before-and-after comparisons [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] (table 1). Online supplemental appendix B table 2 presents an overview of the 28 articles, including details of the study purpose and intervention, and outcomes included in the review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can SBAR be implemented with high fidelity and does it improve communication between healthcare workers? A systematic review

Rotteau

Shojania

2021

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo characterise the extent to which health professionals perform SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) as intended (ie, with high fidelity) and the extent to which its use improves communication clarity or other quality measures.Data sourcesMedline, Healthstar, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL to October 2020 and handsearching selected journals.Study selection and outcome measuresEligible studies consisted of controlled trials and time series, including simple before-after design, assessing SBAR implementation fidelity or the effects of SBAR on communication clarity or other quality measures (eg, safety climate, patient outcomes).Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently abstracted data according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on study features, intervention details and study outcomes. We characterised the magnitude of improvement in outcomes as small (<20% relative increase), moderate (20%–40%) or large (>40%).ResultsTwenty-eight studies (3 randomised controlled trials, 6 controlled before-after studies, and 19 uncontrolled before-after studies) met inclusion criteria. Of the nine studies assessing fidelity of SBAR use, four occurred in classroom settings and three of these studies reported large improvements. The five studies assessing fidelity in clinical settings reported small to moderate effects. Among eight studies measuring communication clarity, only three reported large improvements and two of these occurred in classroom settings. Among the 17 studies reporting impacts on quality measures beyond communication, over half reported moderate to large improvements. These improvements tended to involve measures of teamwork and culture. Improvements in patient outcomes occurred only with intensive multifaceted interventions (eg, early warning scores and rapid response systems).ConclusionsHigh fidelity uptake of SBAR and improvements in communication clarity occurred predominantly in classroom studies. Studies in clinical settings achieving impacts beyond communication typically involved broader, multifaceted interventions. Future efforts to improve communication using SBAR should first confirm high fidelity uptake in clinical settings rather than assuming this has occurred.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018111377.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can SBAR be implemented with high fidelity and does it improve communication between healthcare workers? A systematic review

Rotteau

Shojania

2021

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) is a tool widely used in healthcare settings that have been shown to improve communication between clinicians6 and is recommended by the National Health Service (NHS) Institute for Improvement 7. It was already being used by teams in our trust in a modified format with the addition of a ‘D’ for ‘Decision’ 8. We decided to use this modified version of the tool not only to adhere to trust guidelines but also because the key outcome of a zoning meeting discussion is a shared ‘decision’ made about patient care.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the process of zoning in a community mental health team

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction A zoning system is used to ensure that service users receive appropriate levels of support while they are using community mental health team (CMHT) services. Patients are split into red, amber and green zones and are discussed in a daily morning meeting to ensure management plans are in place. We identified that the meeting was an area for improvement as initial feedback indicated that the meeting was repetitive, newcomers to the team found that they did not understand why patients were in different zones and discussions were not being documented. Our three aims for the project were to improve staff-rated satisfaction by 25%, to improve weekly documentation of discussions to 100% and to improve the quality of information handed over by 25% over 4 months. Methods We used the Model for Improvement and "plan, do, study, act" (PDSA) cycles to test change ideas such as having someone chair the meeting, use of a 'situation, background, assessment, recommendation, decision' (SBARD) format to handover, introduction of a blue zone for inpatients and documentation in a specific part of the electronic notes at a specific time. Results We did not find our PDSA cycles led to a consistent change in satisfaction, quality and efficiency. We found an improvement of SBARD use up to 100% although this was not always consistent and an improvement in documentation to 100% for 3 weeks however this was not sustained. Conclusion On examining barriers to change, we found the key to sustaining improvement is in ensuring multidisciplinary team member involvement at all stages of the Quality Improvement project.

show abstract

Improving communication of important information using the SBARD tool

Cited by 2 publications

References 0 publications

Can SBAR be implemented with high fidelity and does it improve communication between healthcare workers? A systematic review

Can SBAR be implemented with high fidelity and does it improve communication between healthcare workers? A systematic review

Improving the process of zoning in a community mental health team

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About