PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(01): 107-115
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721780
Special Section on Care Transitions

Ascertaining Design Requirements for Postoperative Care Transition Interventions

Joanna Abraham
1   Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
2   Institute for Informatics, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, United States
,
Christopher R. King
1   Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
,
Alicia Meng
1   Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding This study was funded by Washington University School of Medicine.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Handoffs or care transitions from the operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) are fragmented and vulnerable to communication errors. Although protocols and checklists for standardization help reduce errors, such interventions suffer from limited sustainability. An unexplored aspect is the potential role of developing personalized postoperative transition interventions using artificial intelligence (AI)-generated risks.

Objectives This study was aimed to (1) identify factors affecting sustainability of handoff standardization, (2) utilize a human-centered approach to develop design ideas and prototyping requirements for a sustainable handoff intervention, and (3) explore the potential role for AI risk assessment during handoffs.

Methods We conducted four design workshops with 24 participants representing OR and ICU teams at a large medical academic center. Data collection phases were (1) open-ended questions, (2) closed card sorting of handoff information elements, and (3) scenario-based design ideation and prototyping for a handoff intervention. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Card sorts were further tallied to characterize handoff information elements as core, flexible, or unnecessary.

Results Limited protocol awareness among clinicians and lack of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR)-integrated handoff intervention prevented long-term sustainability of handoff standardization. Clinicians argued for a handoff intervention comprised of core elements (included for all patients) and flexible elements (tailored by patient condition and risks). They also identified unnecessary elements that could be omitted during handoffs. Similarities and differences in handoff intervention requirements among physicians and nurses were noted; in particular, clinicians expressed divergent views on the role of AI-generated postoperative risks.

Conclusion Current postoperative handoff interventions focus largely on standardization of information transfer and handoff processes. Our design approach allowed us to visualize accurate models of user expectations for effective interdisciplinary communication. Insights from this study point toward EHR-integrated, “flexibly standardized” care transition interventions that can automatically generate a patient-centered summary and risk-based report.

Keyword

continuity of care - care transition - requirements analysis and design - handoffs - surgery - anesthesia - intensive and critical care - machine learning

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study design was approved by the Washington University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board and consents were obtained from all participants.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 20. August 2020

Angenommen: 10. November 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. Februar 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Segall N, Bonifacio AS, Schroeder RA. et al; Durham VA Patient Safety Center of Inquiry. Can we make postoperative patient handovers safer? A systematic review of the literature. Anesth Analg 2012; 115 (01) 102-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nagpal K, Arora S, Abboudi M. et al. Postoperative handover: problems, pitfalls, and prevention of error. Ann Surg 2010; 252 (01) 171-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Catchpole KR, de Leval MR, McEwan A. et al. Patient handover from surgery to intensive care: using Formula 1 pit-stop and aviation models to improve safety and quality. Paediatr Anaesth 2007; 17 (05) 470-478
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Agarwal HS, Saville BR, Slayton JM. et al. Standardized postoperative handover process improves outcomes in the intensive care unit: a model for operational sustainability and improved team performance*. Crit Care Med 2012; 40 (07) 2109-2115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Petrovic MA, Aboumatar H, Baumgartner WA. et al. Pilot implementation of a perioperative protocol to guide operating room-to-intensive care unit patient handoffs. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012; 26 (01) 11-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 McElroy LM, Collins KM, Koller FL. et al. Operating room to intensive care unit handoffs and the risks of patient harm. Surgery 2015; 158 (03) 588-594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 France DJ, Slagle J, Schremp E. et al. Impact of patient handover structure on neonatal perioperative safety. J Perinatol 2019; 39 (03) 453-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 France DJ, Slagle J, Schremp E. et al. Defining the epidemiology of safety risks in neonatal intensive care unit patients requiring surgery. J Patient Saf 2020
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Northway T, Krahn G, Thibault K. et al. Surgical suite to pediatric intensive care unit handover protocol: implementation process and long-term sustainability. J Nurs Care Qual 2015; 30 (02) 113-120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Shah ACO, Oh DC, Xue AH, Lang JD, Nair BG. An electronic handoff tool to facilitate transfer of care from anesthesia to nursing in intensive care units. Health Informatics J 2019; 25 (01) 3-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yang J-G, Zhang J. Improving the postoperative handover process in the intensive care unit of a tertiary teaching hospital. J Clin Nurs 2016; 25 (7,8): 1062-1072
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gleicher Y, Mosko JD, McGhee I. Improving cardiac operating room to intensive care unit handover using a standardised handover process. BMJ Open Qual 2017; 6 (02) e000076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lane-Fall MB, Pascual JL, Peifer HG. et al. A partially structured postoperative handoff protocol improves communication in 2 mixed surgical intensive care units: findings from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) prospective cohort study. Ann Surg 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kamath SS, Helmers L, Otto A, Kirk D, Erdahl J, Wayling B. Operating room to pediatric intensive care unit handoff: improving communication and team relations while driving process improvement. . Accessed November 25, 2020 at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9af8/79d9c2679f30cff587e365d3dae03fcbc6fc.pdf?_ga=2.147604151.1480360050.1606310602-492149727.1565926388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Faiz T, Saeed B, Ali S, Abbas Q, Malik M. OR to ICU handoff: theory of change model for sustainable change in behavior. Asian Cardiovasc Thorac Ann 2019; 27 (06) 452-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gleich SJ, Nemergut ME, Stans AA. et al. Improvement in patient transfer process from the operating room to the PICU using a lean and six sigma-based quality improvement project. Hosp Pediatr 2016; 6 (08) 483-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Chenault K, Moga M-A, Shin M. et al. Sustainability of protocolized handover of pediatric cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit. Paediatr Anaesth 2016; 26 (05) 488-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Joy BF, Elliott E, Hardy C, Sullivan C, Backer CL, Kane JM. Standardized multidisciplinary protocol improves handover of cardiac surgery patients to the intensive care unit. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2011; 12 (03) 304-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Krimminger D, Sona C, Thomas-Horton E, Schallom M. A multidisciplinary QI initiative to improve OR-ICU handovers. Am J Nurs 2018; 118 (02) 48-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mukhopadhyay D, Wiggins-Dohlvik KC, MrDutt MM. et al. Implementation of a standardized handoff protocol for post-operative admissions to the surgical intensive care unit. Am J Surg 2018; 215 (01) 28-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Tun KS, Wai KS, Yin Y, Thein MK. Postoperative handover among nurses in an orthopedic surgical setting in Myanmar: a best practice implementation project. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports 2019; 17 (11) 2401-2414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Karakaya A, Moerman AT, Peperstraete H, François K, Wouters PF, de Hert SG. Implementation of a structured information transfer checklist improves postoperative data transfer after congenital cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013; 30 (12) 764-769
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Friesen MA, Herbst A, Turner JW, Speroni KG, Robinson J. Developing a patient-centered ISHAPED handoff with patient/family and parent advisory councils. J Nurs Care Qual 2013; 28 (03) 208-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Maddox TM, Rumsfeld JS, Payne PRO. Questions for artificial intelligence in health care. JAMA 2019; 321 (01) 31-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Spencer D, Warfel T. Card sorting: a definitive guide. . Accessed November 25, 2020 at: https://boxesandarrows.com/card-sorting-a-definitive-guide/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kunjan K, Doebbeling B, Toscos T. Dashboards to support operational decision making in health centers: a case for role-specific design. Int J Hum Comput Interact 2019; 35 (09) 742-750
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cooper JB, Singer SJ, Hayes J. et al. Design and evaluation of simulation scenarios for a program introducing patient safety, teamwork, safety leadership, and simulation to healthcare leaders and managers. Simul Healthc 2011; 6 (04) 231-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fritz BA, Cui Z, Zhang M. et al. Deep-learning model for predicting 30-day postoperative mortality. Br J Anaesth 2019; 123 (05) 688-695
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 King CR, Fritz BA, Escallier K. et al. Association between preoperative obstructive sleep apnea and preoperative positive airway pressure with postoperative intensive care unit delirium. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (04) e203125-e203125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Cui Z, Fritz BA, King CR, Avidan MS, Chen Y. A factored generalized additive model for clinical decision support in the operating room. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2019; 2019: 343-352
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Lundberg SM, Nair B, Vavilala MS. et al. Explainable machine-learning predictions for the prevention of hypoxaemia during surgery. Nat Biomed Eng 2018; 2 (10) 749-760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Crowe M, Inder M, Porter R. Conducting qualitative research in mental health: Thematic and content analyses. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2015; 49 (07) 616-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 National Patient Safety Goals. . Accessed November 25, 2020 at: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/national-patient-safety-goals/
    PubMed
  • 34 Breuer RK, Taicher B, Turner DA, Cheifetz IM, Rehder KJ. Standardizing postoperative PICU handovers improves handover metrics and patient outcomes. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2015; 16 (03) 256-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Anwari JS. Quality of handover to the postanaesthesia care unit nurse. Anaesthesia 2002; 57 (05) 488-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Herasevich V, Ellsworth MA, Hebl JR, Brown MJ, Pickering BW. Information needs for the OR and PACU electronic medical record. Appl Clin Inform 2014; 5 (03) 630-641
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Andreae MH, Maman SR, Behnam AJ. An electronic medical record-derived individualized performance metric to measure risk-adjusted adherence with perioperative prophylactic bundles for health care disparity research and implementation science. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (03) 497-514
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Abraham J, Kannampallil TG, Patel VL. Bridging gaps in handoffs: a continuity of care based approach. J Biomed Inform 2012; 45 (02) 240-254
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Mehdipour Ghazi M, Nielsen M, Pai A. et al; Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative. Training recurrent neural networks robust to incomplete data: Application to Alzheimer's disease progression modeling. Med Image Anal 2019; 53: 39-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Ghorbani A, Zou JY. Embedding for informative missingness: deep learning with incomplete data. . Accessed November 25, 2020 at: https://proceedings.allerton.csl.illinois.edu/2018/media/files/0202.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Jerez JM, Molina I, García-Laencina PJ. et al. Missing data imputation using statistical and machine learning methods in a real breast cancer problem. Artif Intell Med 2010; 50 (02) 105-115
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Roy G, Stewart M. Let's gamble: uncovering the impact of visualization on risk perception and decision-making. . Accessed November 25, 2020 at: http://visualdata.wustl.edu/files/lets-gamble.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ottley A, Metevier B, Han PKJ, Chang R. Visually communicating Bayesian statistics to laypersons. . Accessed November 25, 2020 at: https://www.eecs.tufts.edu/~alvittao/files/techReport.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hakone A, Harrison L, Ottley A. et al. PROACT: Iterative design of a patient-centered visualization for effective prostate cancer health risk communication. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 2017; 23 (01) 601-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Dwivedi S, Upadhyay S, Tripathi A. A working framework for the user-centered design approach and a survey of available methods. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications. 2012; 2 (04) 12-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar