Search

Background: Patient handover (handoff in America) is the transfer of information and accountability among nurses assigned to patient care. Introduction, Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (ISBAR) is currently the most popular framework for framing handovers. However, research shows that incomplete handovers and information transfers among healthcare providers and nurses exist and are responsible for adverse patient events. Materials and Methods: The current systematic review aims to view contemporary literature on handover, especially but not exclusively in psychiatric settings, and to extract current conditions from Electronic Patient Records (EPRs) using the ISBAR framework. A total of fifty-five scientific papers were selected to support the scoping review. Eligibility criteria included structured research to analyze outcomes, completed by reviewing policy papers and professional organization guidelines on I/SBAR handovers. Results: Our systematic review shows that the application of ISBAR increases interprofessional communication skills and confidence and the quality of the transfer of clinical information about patients, resulting in increased patient safety and quality of care. Conclusions: Implementing the knowledge and application of structured patient handover will respond to current recommendations for service improvement and quality of care. Furthermore, nurses who use ISBAR also reported its benefits as they feel they can deliver what is required for patient care information in a structured, fast, and efficient way. A further increase in the efficacy of handovers is reported by using EPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cognitive errors are believed to be responsible for the majority of medical errors in clinical practice. We set to identify the prevalence and the types of cognitive errors among cases reviewed by the Morbidity and Mortality (M and M) Committee at King Khalid University Hospital (KKUH). Methods: A cross-sectional, descriptive study conducted at KKUH, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from January 2017 to December 2019. All consecutive cases of adult patients that have had a full review by the M and M committee were included. We applied the adapted (aviation risk management criteria to medicine) to detect any cognitive error among our cases. The cases were classified into three classes based on the number of present errors (A; 3 or more errors, B; 2 errors, and C; 1 error). Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages) were used to describe the categorical study variables. Results: A total of 16 cases were included in this analysis. Eight cases (50%) fulfilled the criteria for category "A" (3 or more cognitive errors). Cases categorized as "B" with 2 errors was seen in 43.8% and cases categorized as "C" with 1 error was seen in 6.2% of cases. The most commonly observed errors were diagnostic flaws such as diagnostic errors in the face of patients' symptoms. Conclusion: We used the aviation risk management approach to identify cognitive errors in medical cases. We observed that =3 errors were more prevalent in the reviewed cases, and the majority of these errors were due to diagnostic flaws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]