Postoperative patient handovers—Variability in perceptions of quality: A qualitative focus group study

Reine, Elizabeth; Rustøen, Tone; Ræder, Johan; Aase, Karina

doi:10.1111/jocn.14662

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A previous study from our research group assessing nurses' evaluations of postoperative handover quality found that the transferring and receiving nurses had different perceptions of the patient and handover situation (Reine, Ræder, et al, 2019). Different professional groups having different perceptions and focus during postoperative patient handover was reported by Randmaa et al (2017), and also a finding in a qualitative study by our research group (Reine, Rustoen, et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…Patient handover is a dynamic process (Manser et al, 2013), and the present study has described how the team responded and adapted to changes in patient condition and circumstances during the handovers observed. The practice of adapting handover to the patient and situation has been described in other clinical studies (Drach‐Zahavy et al, 2015; Rattray et al, 2019; Reine, Rustoen, et al, 2019). These findings imply that the ability to adapt the handover to the patient's condition and circumstances is important for quality, because patients' needs, team composition, preparation and workload during handovers are variable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…For the observations in the first wave of data collection ( n = 20), qualitative data was collected by writing free‐text open field notes (Green & Thorogood, 2018) to describe details regarding the handovers. Based on preliminary analysis of data from the first wave of data collection and a previous study by the research group (Reine, Rustøen, et al 2019), an observational guide was developed for the qualitative observations in the second wave to improve data quality and secure detailed descriptions (Green & Thorogood, 2018). The cases in wave two ( n = 28) were mapped using the guide, which consisted of the following topics: team organisation, structure, patient condition and handover environment.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further, Redley et al (2016) described postoperative patient handovers to be affected by patient condition, working environment, interprofessional interactions and risk perceptions. In our previously mentioned qualitative focus group study, participants described patient condition, structure, timing, characteristics of individuals involved and team composition as factors affecting handover quality (Reine, Rustøen, et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, there is a need to explore how the patient's condition and other factors in the situation (e.g. interruptions, team composition, type of surgery) affect patient handover quality (Møller et al, 2013; Reine, Ræder, et al, 2019; Reine, Rustoen, et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Exploring postoperative handover quality in relation to patient condition: A mixed methods study

Reine

Aase

Ræder

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Nursing

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and Objectives To describe postoperative handover reporting and tasks in relation to patient condition and situational circumstances, in order to identify facilitators for best practices. Background High‐quality handovers in postoperative settings are important for patient safety and continuity of care. There is a need to explore handover quality in relation to patient condition and other affecting factors. Design Observational mixed methods convergent design. Methods Postoperative patient handovers were observed collecting quantitative (n = 109) and qualitative data (n = 48). Quantitative data were collected using the postoperative handover assessment tool (PoHAT), and a scoring system assessing patient condition. Qualitative data were collected using free‐text field notes and an observational guide. The study adheres to the GRAMMS guideline for reporting mixed methods research. Results Information omissions in the handovers observed ranged from 1–13 (median 7). Handovers of vitally stable and comfortable patients were associated with more information omissions in the report. A total of 50 handovers (46%) were subjected to interruptions, and checklist compliance was low (13%, n = 14). Thematic analysis of the qualitative data identified three themes: “adaptation of handover,” “strategies for information transfer” and “contextual and individual factors.” Factors facilitating best practices were related to adaptation of the handover to patient condition and situational circumstances, structured verbal reporting, providing patient assessments and dialogue within the handover team. Conclusions The variations in items reported and tasks performed during the handovers observed were related to patient conditions, situational circumstances and low checklist compliance. Adaptation of the handover to patient condition and situation, structured reporting, dialogue within the team and patient assessments contributed to quality. Relevance to clinical practice It is important to acknowledge that handover quality is related to more than transfer of information. The present study has described how factors related to the patient and situation affect handover quality.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 79%