Using Continuous Process Improvement Methodology to Standardize Nursing Handoff Communication1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2011.08.005Get rights and content

The purpose of this article was to describe the use of continuous performance improvement (CPI) methodology to standardize nurse shift-to-shift handoff communication. The goals of the process were to standardize the content and process of shift handoff, improve patient safety, increase patient and family involvement in the handoff process, and decrease end-of-shift overtime. This article will describe process changes made over a 4-year period as result of application of the plan–do–check–act procedure, which is an integral part of the CPI methodology, and discuss further work needed to continue to refine this critical nursing care process.

Section snippets

Background

Effective communication among health care providers is imperative to ensure patient safety. Data obtained by The Joint Commission (TJC) from 1995 to 2005 in their review of sentinel events reported during this period indicate that communication was the root cause of 65% of sentinel events (Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare, 2005). These troubling data indicate a clear need for better communication among health care workers to improve patient safety. The accurate transfer of

Use of Continuous Process Improvement to Standardize Handoff: Phase I Identifying the Opportunity for Improvement

In 2006, an assessment of current handoff practice at our organization revealed many opportunities for improvement. At that time, there were no policies or standard methods for either the content or process for change of shift handoff. The shift handoff was similar but not standard across the organization. On most units, the process consisted of a verbal exchange at the nursing station between the off-going and oncoming nurse. On some units, the handoff was preceded by a unit huddle where all

Use of Continuous Process Improvement to Standardize Handoff: Phase II Identifying the Opportunity for Improvement

In early 2009, leadership observations and staff feedback revealed that staff had maintained the use of the standard handoff tool and were still doing safety checks at the bedside 83% of the time. However, use of the medical record as a reliable source of information was not being done consistently, and the standard sequence of the handoff process was not being followed. Families were inconsistently included in the bedside safety check component of the handoff. Recognition of this inconsistency

Conclusions and Implications for Further Study

Many improvements were realized following completion of our workshops. These improvements include increased family involvement, identification of safety concerns or errors before they reach the patient, and improved quality of exchanged information. We believe that the use of CPI methodology enabled us to make significant changes in a shorter timeline than could have been accomplished using traditional change management approaches. The RPIWs ensure that the right stakeholders are given

References (16)

  • H. Berkenstadt et al.

    Improving handoff communications in critical care: Utilizing simulation-based training toward process improvement in managing patient risk

    Chest

    (2008)
  • P. Adamski

    Implement a handoff communications approach

    Nursing Management

    (2007)
  • C.D. Anderson et al.

    Nurse shift report, who says you can't talk in front of the patient?

    Nursing Administration Quarterly

    (2006)
  • M.K. Anthony et al.

    Models of care: The influence of nurse communication on patient safety

    Nursing Economics

    (2002)
  • J. Cahill

    Patient's perceptions of bedside handovers

    Journal of Clinical Nursing

    (1998)
  • K. Dracup et al.

    Passing the torch: The challenge of handoffs

    American Journal of Critical Care

    (2008)
  • K. Ishikawa

    What is total quality control?

  • Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare. (2005). Improving America's Hospitals, A Report on Quality and Safety,...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

1

The authors of this article have received no extramural funding or commercial financial support for this project. This article has not been previously presented or published.

View full text