2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.06.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Nurse perceptions of person-centered handovers in the oncological inpatient setting: A qualitative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
59
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 102 publications
0
59
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…There were several handover styles employed by nurses focusing on nurse‐to‐nurse shift handovers within an inpatient ward (Bakon, Wirihana, Christensen, & Craft, ; Riesenberg, Leitzsch, & Little, ; Thomas & Donohue‐Porter, ). In terms of structured handoffs, there is a wide range of different formats (Table ), such as SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation), ICCCO (identification of the patient and clinical risks, clinical history/presentation, clinical status, care plan and outcomes/goals of care), patient‐centred handovers (PCH) and a standardized nursing handoff form (NHF; Johnson, Sanchez, & Zheng, ; Kullberg, Sharp, Dahl, Brandberg, & Bergenmar, ; Ting, Peng, Lin, & Hsiao, ; Zou & Zhang, ). According to Meth and Bass (2013), there are six content categories that make up a handover process in general, namely patient identifies, symptoms/clinical impression, procedure and/or treatment, explanation, rationale and directives for anticipated events (Meth, Bass, & Hoke, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There were several handover styles employed by nurses focusing on nurse‐to‐nurse shift handovers within an inpatient ward (Bakon, Wirihana, Christensen, & Craft, ; Riesenberg, Leitzsch, & Little, ; Thomas & Donohue‐Porter, ). In terms of structured handoffs, there is a wide range of different formats (Table ), such as SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation), ICCCO (identification of the patient and clinical risks, clinical history/presentation, clinical status, care plan and outcomes/goals of care), patient‐centred handovers (PCH) and a standardized nursing handoff form (NHF; Johnson, Sanchez, & Zheng, ; Kullberg, Sharp, Dahl, Brandberg, & Bergenmar, ; Ting, Peng, Lin, & Hsiao, ; Zou & Zhang, ). According to Meth and Bass (2013), there are six content categories that make up a handover process in general, namely patient identifies, symptoms/clinical impression, procedure and/or treatment, explanation, rationale and directives for anticipated events (Meth, Bass, & Hoke, ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The goal of the method is to improve both communication between nurses and communication between nurses and patients (Gregory, Tan, Tilrico, Edwardson, & Gamm, ). As a result of this improved communication, safety incidents (Evans, Grunawalt, McClish, Wood, & Friese, ) and readmissions decrease, and patient satisfaction and participation increase (Gregory et al., ; Kullberg, Sharp, Dahl, Brandberg, & Bergenmar, ). Moreover, there are also some organizational benefits reported, such as enhanced handover efficiency due to decrease in irrelevant or nonpatient‐related information, and the immediate start of direct patient care (Evans et al., ; Slade, Pun, Murray, & Eggins, ; Tobiano, Bucknall, Sladdin, Whitty, & Chaboyer, ), both resulting in better time use by nurses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, there are also some organizational benefits reported, such as enhanced handover efficiency due to decrease in irrelevant or nonpatient‐related information, and the immediate start of direct patient care (Evans et al., ; Slade, Pun, Murray, & Eggins, ; Tobiano, Bucknall, Sladdin, Whitty, & Chaboyer, ), both resulting in better time use by nurses. Looking at the proven and acclaimed benefits of the method, bringing the handover to the bedside is important for increasing the quality of the nursing handover (Kullberg et al., ; Slade et al., ; Tobiano, Bucknall, et al., ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Encouraging greater patient involvement in decision-making is seen as a marker of the provision of high quality and safe person-centred care 4–6. The challenges identified in Kullberg et al ’s study2 resonate with the wider literature on patient participation and involvement where issues of uncertainty over what genuine ‘participation’ and partnership working looks like and how best to do this well in practice, were again highlighted 4–6. Power inequalities, highlighted in previous research,6 were also identified in Kullberg et al ’s study.…”
Section: Commentarymentioning
confidence: 85%
“…In Kullberg et al ’s2 study, semi-structured interviews were used to explore nurses’ (n=11) perceptions of the use and impact of PCH in two inpatient oncology wards in Sweden. In both wards, PCH were conducted at the patients’ bedside at the change of the morning and evening shifts.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%