Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:23:05.206Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Clinical Information Transfer between EMS Staff and Emergency Medicine Assistants during Handover of Trauma Patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2017

Seyedeh Almas Fahim Yegane ,
Ali Shahrami ,
Hamid Reza Hatamabadi  and
Seyed-Mostafa Hosseini-Zijoud
Seyedeh Almas Fahim Yegane
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Ali Shahrami*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Hamid Reza Hatamabadi
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Seyed-Mostafa Hosseini-Zijoud
Affiliation:
Nephrology & Urology Research Center, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*
Correspondence: Ali Shahrami, MD Department of Emergency Medicine Imam Hossein Hospital, Madani Street Tehran, Iran 1617763141 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Clinical handover by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staff, as the first people who have contact with trauma patients, in the emergency department (ED), is very important. Therefore, effective communication to transfer clinical information about patients in a concise, rational, clear, and time-bound manner is essential. In Iran, the transfer of necessary information in clinical handover in EDs was carried out orally and without following standard instructions. This study aimed to audit the current clinical handover according to the Identify, Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (ISBAR) tool and survey the effect of training the ISBAR tool to Emergency Medicine Assistants (EMAs) and EMS staff on improvement of the clinical handover of patients to the ED.

Methods

This is a clinical audit study in three phases in Imam Hossein Hospital (Tehran, Iran) during 2016. In the first phase, the clinical handover between EMS staff and EMAs for 178 trauma patients admitted to the ED using ISBAR was audited and information was recorded. In the second phase, the correct approach of clinical handover according to the ISBAR tool was taught to EMS staff and EMAs using pamphlets and lectures. In the third phase, again, the clinical handover between EMS staff and EMAs for 168 trauma patients admitted to the ED was audited using the ISBAR tool and information was recorded. At the end, clinical audit assessment indicators of handover were evaluated before and after training.

Results

Clinical audit of the current situation in the ED showed that the clinical handover process does not follow standard ISBAR (0.0%). However, after training, 65.3% of clinical handover processes were performed in accordance with ISBAR. In the current study, there was an increase in all parameters of the ISBAR tool after training, most of which increased significantly compared to the first phase of the study (before the intervention).

Conclusions

Findings demonstrate that patient handover in the ED did not initially follow the ISBAR standard guideline. After providing education as pamphlets and lectures to EMS staff and EMAs, a high percentage of patient handovers were conducted in accordance with the ISBAR instructions.

Fahim YeganeSA, ShahramiA, HatamabadiHR, Hosseini-ZijoudSM. Clinical Information Transfer between EMS Staff and Emergency Medicine Assistants during Handover of Trauma Patients. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):541–547.

Keywords

clinical auditclinical handoveremergencyISBARtrauma patients
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2017 , pp. 541 - 547
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported.

References

1. Bost, N, Crilly, J, Wallis, M, Patterson, E, Chaboyer, W. Clinical handover of patients arriving by ambulance to the emergency department - a literature review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2010;18(4):210-220.Google Scholar
2. Dojmi Di Delupis, F, Mancini, N, Di Nota, T, Pisanelli, P. Prehospital/emergency department handover in Italy. Intern Emerg Med. 2015;10(1):63-72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Lally, S. An investigation in to the functions of nurses’ communication at the inter-shift handover. J Nurs Manag. 1999;7(1):29.Google Scholar
4. Benson, E, Rippin-Sisler, C, Jabusch, K, Keast, S. Improving nursing shift‐to‐shift report. J Nurs Care Qual. 2007;22(1):80-84.Google Scholar
5. Strople, B, Ottani, P. Can technology improve intershift report? What the research reveals. J Prof Nurs. 2006;22(3):197-204.Google Scholar
6. Vidyarthi, AR, Arora, V, Schnipper, JL, et al. Managing discontinuity in academic medical centers: strategies for a safe and effective resident sign-out. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(4):257-266.Google Scholar
7. Singer, JI, Dean, J. Emergency physician intershift handovers: an analysis of our transitional care. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2006;22(10):751-754.Google Scholar
8. Horwitz, LI, Moin, T, Krunholz, HM, et al. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1755-1760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Welsh, CA, Flanagan, ME, Ebright, P. Barriers and facilitators to nursing handoffs: recommendations for redesign. Nursing Outlook. 2010;58(3):148-154.Google Scholar
10. Hohenhaus, S, Powell, S, Hohenhaus, JT. Enhancing patient safety during hand‐offs: standardized communication and teamwork using the ‘SBAR’method. AJN. 2006;106(8):72A-72BA.Google Scholar
11. Woodhall, LJ, Vertacnik, L, McLaughlin, M. Implementation of the SBAR communication technique in a tertiary center. J Emergy Nurs. 2008;34(4):314-317.Google Scholar
12. Thompson, JE, Collett, LW, Langbart, MJ, et al. Using the ISBAR handover tool in junior medical officer handover: a study in an Australian tertiary hospital. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87(1027):340-344.Google Scholar
13. Ahmed, J, Mehmood, S, Rehman, S, Ilyas, C, Khan, L. Impact of a structured template and staff training on compliance and quality of clinical handover. Int J Surg. 2012;10(9):571-574.Google Scholar
14. Arora, V, Johnson, J. A model for building a standardized hand-off protocol. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2006;32(11):646-655.Google Scholar
15. Yee, KC, Wong, MC, Turner, P. Hand me an ISOBAR: a pilot study of an evidence-based approach to improving shift-to-shift clinical handover. Med J Aust. 2009;190(11 Suppl):S121-S124.Google Scholar
16. Marshall, S, Harrison, J, Flanagan, B. The teaching of a structured tool improves the clarity and content of inter-professional clinical communication. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009;18(2):137-140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Ferran, NA, Metcalfe, AJ, O’Doherty, D. Standardized proformas improve patient handover: audit of trauma handover practice. Patient Saf Surg. 2008;2(1):1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Riesenberg, LA, Leisch, J, Cunningham, JM. Nursing handoffs: a systematic review of the literature. AJN. 2010;110(4):24-34.Google Scholar