IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v29y2020i19-20p3790-3801.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nursing handoffs and clinical judgments regarding patient risk of deterioration: A mixed‐methods study

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Lavoie
  • Sean P. Clarke
  • Christina Clausen
  • Margaret Purden
  • Jessica Emed
  • Lidia Cosencova
  • Valerie Frunchak

Abstract

Aims and objectives To explore how change‐of‐shift handoffs relate to nurses' clinical judgments regarding patient risk of deterioration. Background The transfer of responsibility for patients' care comes with an exchange of information about their condition during change‐of‐shift handoff. However, it is unclear how this exchange affects nurses' clinical judgments regarding patient risk of deterioration. Design A sequential explanatory mixed‐methods study reported according to the STROBE and COREQ guidelines. Methods Over four months, 62 nurses from one surgical and two medical units at a single Canadian hospital recorded their handoffs at change of shift. After each handoff, the two nurses involved each rated the patient's risk of experiencing cardiac arrest or being transferred to an intensive care unit in the next 24 hr separately. The information shared in handoffs was subjected to content analysis; code frequencies were contrasted per nurses' ratings of patient risk to identify characteristics of information that facilitated or hindered nurses' agreement. Results Out of 444 recorded handoffs, there were 125 in which at least one nurse judged that a patient was at risk of deterioration; nurses agreed in 32 cases (25.6%) and disagreed in 93 (74.4%). These handoffs generally included information on abnormal vital signs, breathing problems, chest pain, alteration of mental status or neurological symptoms. However, the quantity and seriousness of clinical cues, recent transfers from intensive care units, pain without a clear cause, signs of delirium and nurses' knowledge of patient were found to affect nurses' agreement. Conclusions Nurses exchanged more information regarding known indicators of deterioration in handoffs when they judged that patients were at risk. Disagreements most often involved incoming nurses rating patient risk as higher. Relevance to clinical practice This study suggests a need to sensitise nurses to the impact of certain cues at report on their colleagues' subsequent clinical judgments. Low levels of agreement between nurses underscore the importance of exchanging impressions regarding the likely evolution of a patient's situation to promote continuity of care.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Lavoie & Sean P. Clarke & Christina Clausen & Margaret Purden & Jessica Emed & Lidia Cosencova & Valerie Frunchak, 2020. "Nursing handoffs and clinical judgments regarding patient risk of deterioration: A mixed‐methods study," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(19-20), pages 3790-3801, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:19-20:p:3790-3801
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.15409
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15409
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.15409?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:29:y:2020:i:19-20:p:3790-3801. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.