Advertisement

Safe Transitions of Care: A Participatory Human Factors Approach for Improving Safety in the Communication of Healthcare Organizations

  • G. Toccafondi
  • S. Albolino
  • T. Bellandi
  • A. Savelli
  • G. Frangioni
  • O. Elisei
  • M. Baroni
  • A. Molisso
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)

Abstract

Care transitions are critical moments which may expose patients to adverse events and generate organizational failures. Ineffective care transition processes lead to higher hospital readmission rates and costs and patients can be harmed when the many moving parts of their care process are not effectively coordinated.

The human factor and patient safety approach can provide effective methodologies for the design of tools to improve the ability of health care workers to make available key information at the right time, ensuring patient safety and continuity of the clinical pathway.

In order to unveil what promotes or hinders effective communications at care transitions we involved health care workers of 10 dyads of inpatient care units (250 operators accounting for 1500 care transitions) in an action research process. The aim was to endow the participants with the skills necessary for evaluating the organizational context in which the handovers occur and give them support in prompting the interventions for constructing an organizational context underpinning safer communications at care transitions.

In particular through the application of the FMEA technique the highest priority of interventions have been assigned to 7 pitfalls which need to be taken into account in order to amplify the capability of organizations to implement the handover patient safety practice and fruitfully maintain it. Communication at care transitions is a fundamental testbed for the resilience of complex healthcare organizations. We attempt to increase the safety of communication during care transitions in order to allow healthcare organization to sustain required operations, in the presence of continuous stress. To achieve that we tried to endow the healthcare workers with the methodological tools for analyzing the current situations and adapt it in order to embrace the handover patient safety practice.

Keywords

Handover Care transitions Human factors 

References

  1. 1.
    Wong MC, Yee KC, Turner P (2008) Clinical Handover Literature Review. eHealth Services Research Group University of Tasmania, Australia, pp 1–114Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abraham J, Kannampallil T, Patel VL (2014) A systematic review of the literature on the evaluation of handoff tools: implications for research and practice. J Am Med Inform Assoc 21(1):154–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arora V, Johnson J, Lovinger D et al (2005) Communication failures in patient sign-out and suggestions for improvement: a critical incident analysis. Qual Saf Healthcare 14:401–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bergman AA, Flanagan ME, Ebright PR et al (2015) Mr Smith’s been our problem child today…: anticipatory management communication (AMC) in VA end-of-shift medicine and nursing handoffs. BMJ Qual Saf 25(2):84–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bomba D, Prakash R (2005) A description of Handover processes in Australian public hospital. Aust Health Rev 29:68–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Catchpole KR, De Leval MR, Mc Ewan A et al (2007) Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality. Paediatr Anaest 17:470–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollnagel E, Leonhardt J, Licu T et al (2013) From safety-I to safety-II: a white paper Eurocontrol–European Organisation for the Safety of Air NavigationGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hesselink G, Flink M, Olsson M et al (2012) Are patients discharged with care? A qualitative study of perceptions and experiences of patients, family members and care providers. Bmj Qual Saf Suppl 1:i39–i49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R et al (2014) Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med 371:1803–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeffcott SA, Ibrahim JE, Cameron PA (2009) Resilience in healthcare and clinical handover. Qual Saf Health Care 18:256–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Toccafondi G, Alboino S, Tartaglia R et al (2012) The collaborative communication model for patient handover at the interface between high-acuity and low-acuity care. BMJ Qual Saf 21:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tomasello M (2008) The origins of human communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    WHO Collaborating Centre for Patient Safety, (2007) Patient Safety Solutions, vol 1, solution 3Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Potts H et al (2014) Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques. BMC Health Serv Res 14:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Toccafondi
    • 1
  • S. Albolino
    • 1
  • T. Bellandi
    • 4
  • A. Savelli
    • 2
  • G. Frangioni
    • 2
  • O. Elisei
    • 4
  • M. Baroni
    • 5
  • A. Molisso
    • 3
  1. 1.Clinical Risk Management and Patient Safety Centre Tuscany Region - WHO Collaborating Centre in Human Factors and Communication for the Delivery of Safe and Quality CareFlorenceItaly
  2. 2.AOU Meyer Pediatric Hospital, Regional Health Service of TuscanyFlorenceItaly
  3. 3.Tuscany Centre Trust, Regional Health Service of TuscanyFlorenceItaly
  4. 4.Tuscany North West Trust, Regional Health Service of TuscanyLuccaItaly
  5. 5.FTGM Hospital, Regional Health Service of TuscanyMassaItaly

Personalised recommendations