Cargando…

Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?

BACKGROUND: Good clinical handover is critical to safe medical care. Little research has investigated handover in rural settings. In a remote setting where nurses and medical students give telephone handover to an aeromedical retrieval service, we developed a tool by which the receiving clinician mi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moore, Malcolm, Roberts, Chris, Newbury, Jonathan, Crossley, Jim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5688655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29141622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0
_version_ 1783279208581038080
author Moore, Malcolm
Roberts, Chris
Newbury, Jonathan
Crossley, Jim
author_facet Moore, Malcolm
Roberts, Chris
Newbury, Jonathan
Crossley, Jim
author_sort Moore, Malcolm
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Good clinical handover is critical to safe medical care. Little research has investigated handover in rural settings. In a remote setting where nurses and medical students give telephone handover to an aeromedical retrieval service, we developed a tool by which the receiving clinician might assess the handover; and investigated factors impacting on the reliability and validity of that assessment. METHODS: Researchers consulted with clinicians to develop an assessment tool, based on the ISBAR handover framework, combining validity evidence and the existing literature. The tool was applied ‘live’ by receiving clinicians and from recorded handovers by academic assessors. The tool’s performance was analysed using generalisability theory. Receiving clinicians and assessors provided feedback. RESULTS: Reliability for assessing a call was good (G = 0.73 with 4 assessments). The scale had a single factor structure with good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8). The group mean for the global score for nurses and students was 2.30 (SD 0.85) out of a maximum 3.0, with no difference between these sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and evaluated a tool to assess high-stakes handover in a remote setting. It showed good reliability and was easy for working clinicians to use. Further investigation and use is warranted beyond this setting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5688655
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56886552017-11-22 Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings? Moore, Malcolm Roberts, Chris Newbury, Jonathan Crossley, Jim BMC Med Educ Research Article BACKGROUND: Good clinical handover is critical to safe medical care. Little research has investigated handover in rural settings. In a remote setting where nurses and medical students give telephone handover to an aeromedical retrieval service, we developed a tool by which the receiving clinician might assess the handover; and investigated factors impacting on the reliability and validity of that assessment. METHODS: Researchers consulted with clinicians to develop an assessment tool, based on the ISBAR handover framework, combining validity evidence and the existing literature. The tool was applied ‘live’ by receiving clinicians and from recorded handovers by academic assessors. The tool’s performance was analysed using generalisability theory. Receiving clinicians and assessors provided feedback. RESULTS: Reliability for assessing a call was good (G = 0.73 with 4 assessments). The scale had a single factor structure with good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8). The group mean for the global score for nurses and students was 2.30 (SD 0.85) out of a maximum 3.0, with no difference between these sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and evaluated a tool to assess high-stakes handover in a remote setting. It showed good reliability and was easy for working clinicians to use. Further investigation and use is warranted beyond this setting. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC5688655/ /pubmed/29141622 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moore, Malcolm
Roberts, Chris
Newbury, Jonathan
Crossley, Jim
Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
title Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
title_full Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
title_fullStr Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
title_full_unstemmed Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
title_short Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
title_sort am i getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5688655/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29141622
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0
work_keys_str_mv AT mooremalcolm amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings
AT robertschris amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings
AT newburyjonathan amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings
AT crossleyjim amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings