Customized handoff
BehavioralA customized handoff will be implemented that consists of choreographed handoffs utilizing a structured handoff tool to facilitate information exchange.
NCT Number: NCT04571749
The investigators will leverage implementation science and engineering to adapt, implement, and rigorously evaluate tailored postoperative handoff protocols and implementation strategies. In doing so, the investigators will develop a vital understanding of the factors needed for successful and sustained use of evidence-based interventions in acute care. This knowledge will inform approaches to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap that prevents effective interventions from realizing the promise of improved patient outcomes in acute care settings.
Interested in participating?
Request Info18 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, Maryland, United States
Surgical patients who require post-surgical critical care are usually transferred from the operating room (OR) to the intensive care unit (ICU) for ongoing care. The process of transferring the patient from the OR to the ICU is called a "handoff." Handoffs involve the transfer of patient information and transfer of patient care responsibilities from the OR team to the ICU team. Multiple studies suggest that these handoffs can expose patients to preventable harm, which can be avoided with standardization of the handoff. The Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC; IRB #819726) study, started in 2014, developed and implemented a standardized OR to ICU handoff process in two Penn surgical ICUs (SICUs) that did not have a standardized handoff process.
Four clinicians (surgeon, anesthetist, ICU provider, and ICU nurse) from two teams (surgical and intensive care) usually take part in handoff communication. During the HATRICC study, the investigators evaluated handoff communication between the OR and ICU teams before and after implementation of the new standardized handoff process (the "HATRICC process") in multiple ways, using observations, interviews, focus groups, and surveys. The investigators demonstrated a 20% improvement in information exchange after implementation of the HATRICC standardized handoff process, a process tailored to meet the needs of the different clinicians participating in OR to ICU handoffs.
Prior studies have indicated short-term success in standardizing OR to ICU handoffs, but sustainability of these improvement interventions has been less well studied. Two studies have demonstrated sustained or improved information exchange following the institution of structured OR to ICU handoff processes, but the factors influencing sustainability remain to be elucidated.
The aims of this study are to:
Healthy volunteers accepted: Yes
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
for Clinicians:
Inclusion criteria
for Patients:
Exclusion criteria
for Clinicians:
Exclusion criteria
for Patients:
A customized handoff will be implemented that consists of choreographed handoffs utilizing a structured handoff tool to facilitate information exchange.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5.
Fidelity is defined as adherence to the standardized handoff intervention. Fidelity is a count of handoff steps followed, with scores ranging from 0 to 10. Fidelity will be measured by trained site-based observers. Field notes by trained observers will inform the interpretation of fidelity. Units of analysis: patient level (handoff level), ICU level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year5
Per-protocol handoffs enable clinicians to follow expected care practices and to anticipate and avoid postoperative deterioration.
Time frame: Baseline (Year 1); within 2months of implementation; within 2 months of beginning sustainment
Acceptability is defined as "the perception among implementation stakeholders that a given treatment, service, practice, or innovation is agreeable, palatable, or satisfactory." (Proctor et al, Adm Policy Ment Health (2011) 38:65-76). Acceptability will be measured using the Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM) developed by Weiner et al (Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108; see Appendix). Interview and focus group transcripts and field notes will be analyzed to develop a more nuanced understanding of acceptability. Unit of analysis: individual (employed staff)
Time frame: Baseline (Year 1); within 2months of implementation; within 2 months of beginning sustainment
Appropriateness is defined as "the perceived fit, relevance, or compatibility of the innovation or evidence based practice for a given practice setting, provider, or consumer; and/or perceived fit of the innovation to address a particular issue or problem." (Proctor et al, Adm Policy Ment Health (2011) 38:65-76). Appropriateness will be measured using the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM) developed by Weiner et al (Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108; see Appendix). Interview and focus group transcripts and field notes will be analyzed to develop a more nuanced understanding of appropriateness. Unit of analysis: individual (employed staff)
Time frame: Baseline (Year 1); within 2months of implementation; within 2 months of beginning sustainment
Feasibility is defined as "the extent to which a new treatment, or an innovation, can be successfully used or carried out within a given agency or setting." (Proctor et al, Adm Policy Ment Health (2011) 38:65-76). Feasibility will be measured using the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) developed by Weiner et al (Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):108; see Appendix). Interview and focus group transcripts and field notes will be analyzed to develop a more nuanced understanding of feasibility. Unit of analysis: individual (employed staff)
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting 2 years after implementation, up to 5 years.
Sustainment is defined as fidelity over time. We define the sustainment phase as starting two years after implementation. Units of analysis: patient level (handoff level), ICU level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured within 2 months of implementation; within2 months of beginning sustainment
We will conduct a retrospective cost analysis as described by Hoeft et al (Implementation Science 2019;14(1):37). We will use the line item classification system, in which accounting principles are used to calculate costs, and will attempt to include both monetary costs and non-monetary costs (e.g., opportunity costs). Activities undertaken only for research (e.g., interviews and focus groups) will not be included in this analysis. Field notes will be the primary data source for this outcome. Unit of analysis: ICU level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at quarterly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5
Teamwork will be measured using a validated instrument, the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM) (Cooper et al, Resuscitation 2010;81(4):446-452). Unit of analysis: handoff team.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured annually from Years 1 to 5.
Clinician satisfaction will be measured using a non-validated instrument adapted from the parent HATRICC study (see Appendix). Unit of analysis: individual.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at quarterly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5.
Workload is a measure of effectiveness and will be measured using the validated NASA Task Load Index.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year5
Information omissions is a measure of the completeness of information exchange. It will be measured at the same time as fidelity using a structured observation form (see Appendix). Unit of analysis: patient level (handoff level).
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at quarterly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5.
This is a composite measure defined by AHRQ as "the weighted average of the reliability-adjusted observed-to-expected ratios (indirect standardization of the smoothed rates) for the following component indicators: PSI 03 Pressure Ulcer Rate; PSI 06 Iatrogenic Pneumothorax Rate; PSI 07 Central Venous Catheter-Related Blood Stream Infection Rate; PSI 08 Postoperative Hip Fracture Rate; PSI 09 Perioperative Hemorrhage or Hematoma Rate; PSI 10 Postoperative Physiologic and Metabolic Derangement Rate; PSI 11 Postoperative Respiratory Failure Rate; PSI 12 Perioperative Pulmonary Embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis Rate; PSI 13 Postoperative Sepsis Rate; PSI 14 Postoperative Wound Dehiscence Rate; PSI 15 Accidental Puncture or Laceration Rate." We note that some of the components of this measure overlap with our primary effectiveness outcome. Unit of analysis: ICU-level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5
This measure is one of the five components of the co-primary outcome of new-onset organ failure. It is defined by AHRQ as "perioperative hemorrhage or hematoma cases with control of perioperative hemorrhage, drainage of hematoma, or a miscellaneous hemorrhage- or hematoma-related procedure following surgery per 1,000 surgical discharges." AHRQ collects this information for patients aged 18 and older, but we will collect this outcome for pediatric patients in the two pediatric ICUs. Unit of analysis: ICU-level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5.
This measure is one of the five components of the co-primary outcome of new-onset organ failure. It is defined by AHRQ as "postoperative acute renal failure (secondary diagnosis) with dialysis per 1,000 elective surgical discharges." AHRQ collects this information for patients aged 18 and older, but we will collect this outcome for pediatric patients in the two pediatric ICUs. Unit of analysis: ICU-level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5
This measure is one of the five components of the co-primary outcome of new-onset organ failure. It is defined by AHRQ as "postoperative respiratory failure (secondary diagnosis), prolonged mechanical ventilation, or reintubation cases per 1,000 elective surgical discharges." AHRQ collects this information for patients aged 18 and older, but we will collect this outcome for pediatric patients in the two pediatric ICUs. Unit of analysis: ICU-level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5
This measure is one of the five components of the co-primary outcome of new-onset organ failure. It is defined by AHRQ as "perioperative pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (secondary diagnosis) per 1,000 surgical discharges." AHRQ collects this information for patients aged 18 and older, but we will collect this outcome for pediatric patients in the two pediatric ICUs. Unit of analysis: ICU-level.
Time frame: This outcome will be measured at monthly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5
This measure is one of the five components of the co-primary outcome of new-onset organ failure. It is defined by AHRQ as "postoperative sepsis cases (secondary diagnosis) per 1,000 elective surgical discharges." AHRQ collects this information for patients aged 18 and older, but we will collect this outcome for pediatric patients in the two pediatric ICUs. Unit of analysis: ICU-level.
Time frame: At quarterly intervals starting Year 1, Quarter 2 and continuing until the end of Year 5.
Professionalism will be characterized qualitatively using field notes from trained observers. Unit of analysis: handoff team.
University of Pennsylvania
Other
Acronym: HATRICC-US
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT02267174
Behavior, Communication
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02217241
Patient Handoff
Washington D.C., District of Columbia, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07722520
Behavior, Communication
Cairo, Abbasya, Egypt
View Trial DetailsNCT06711484
Behavior, Communication
Ankara, Turkey (Türkiye)
View Trial Details