Improving Surgical Handover: Has using a word-processed document improved the quality of general...
-
Upload
augustus-griffin -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Improving Surgical Handover: Has using a word-processed document improved the quality of general...
Improving Surgical Handover:
Has using a word-processed document improved the quality of
general surgical handover?
Completed audit cycle
Undertaken at Conquest Hospital, East Sussex Healthcare Trust
Sara Khoyratty, CT1
Audit questions
Were we documenting and, therefore, reliably handing over this minimum amount of data with paper handover sheets?
What proportion of handover sheets were retained by the department as evidence of productivity?
Method
AUDIT: 4 months of paper handover sheets– Organised into months April-July– Data collected
• Per patient• Per list• Per month
RE-AUDIT: 4 months of word processed handover sheets– Organised into months September - December– Data collected and analysed as above
Audit Conclusion
• Keeping a copy of handover lists was very low, ranging from 14% to 65%– Is there a better way of storing this information?
• Basic information should be 100%• Clinical detail needs to be improved – only 40-
60% of patients have a plan or pending investigations handed over– More space– Educate doctors
Changes implemented• Highlighted problems to FY1s and SHOs in
Surgery and Orthopaedics• Explained new system available on ward
computers • Encouraged to be as thorough as possible• Easy access to document templates • Explained where to save documents in organised
system• Encouraged to feedback suggestions or problems
Results: patient load
Month Patients per month
April 75
May 111
June 76
July 57
Month Patients per month
Sept 118
Oct 137
Nov 137
Dec 126
Paper list: Word processed list:
Results: number of lists retained
MonthNo. of lists retained
(%age retention)
April 42%
May 65%
June 14%
July 26%
MonthNo. of lists retained
(%age retention)
Sept 87%
Oct 77%
Nov 87%
Dec 94%
Paper list: Word processed list:
Results: named on call consultant
Month Recorded on-call consultant
April 42%
May 65%
June 14%
July 26%
Month Recorded on-call consultant
Sept 63%
Oct 65%
Nov 80%
Dec 84%
Paper list: Word processed list:
Results: patient data set completeness
Month Average completeness of patient data set (range)
April 68.1%(50.0% – 77.8%)
May 68.3%(50.5% - 88.9%)
June 74.9%(65.6% - 88.9%)
July 68.5%(54.6% - 79.8%)
Month Average completeness of patient data set (range)
Sept75.2%
(52.8% - 97.2%)
Oct80.5%
(63.2% - 91.1%)
Nov85.0%
(72.2% - 94.4%)
Dec78.0%
(69.4% - 100.0%)
Paper list: Word processed list:
Results: basic information
InformationRange of completeness: basic information
Name 99% - 100%
Patient number 82% - 100%
DoB/Age 84% - 92%
Location 89% - 98%
InformationRange of completeness: basic information
Name 100%
Patient number 93% - 99%
DoB/Age 73% - 88%
Location 97% - 100%
Paper list: Word processed list:
Results: clinical information
Information Average completeness of clinical patient data
Diagnosis 88% - 96%
Results 51% - 64%
Pending 39% - 61%
Plan 50% - 64%
Stability 2% - 9%
Paper list: Word processed list:
Information Average completeness of clinical patient data
Diagnosis 97% - 100%
Results 62% - 88%
Pending 69% - 85%
Plan 78% - 96%
Stability 6% - 15%
Comparison
What did we improve?• Number of lists saved• Overall amount of data recorded per patient &
per list• Name, location and X numbers recorded• Diagnosis, results, pending and plan recorded
Overall satisfaction and non-measured improvements, e.g. name of SpR/FY1 on call
Comparison
What did we fail to significantly improve or worsen?
• Stability of the patients
• Recording the named consultant on-call
Critique
Statistical comparison difficult as percentages skewed by disproportionate data
Verbal handover just as important
Some data was less consistently handed over
Further changes
Microsoft Access database to ensure minimum dataset entry and accurate records.
Have a tick-box system to denote stability, e.g.:
Stability ✓
Stable
Urgent
Critical
Further audit
Implement these changes and re-audit
Audit verbal handover for e.g. 1 week: RCS guidance document
Data collection for 1 year