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

BMC Medical Education

Research Article

Jim Crossley¹  Chris Roberts²  Malcolm Moore³  Jonathan Newbury⁴ 

[1] Medical School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK;Northern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia;Rural Clinical School, Australian National University Medical School, 54 Mills Rd, 2601, Acton, ACT, Australia;Broken Hill University Department of Rural Health, University of Sydney, Broken Hill, Australia;Rural Clinical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia;

关键词: Clinical handover;    Work-based assessment;    Communication skills;    Medical education;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0

 received in 2016-12-23, accepted in 2017-11-07,  发布年份 2017

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundGood 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.MethodsResearchers 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.ResultsReliability 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.ConclusionsWe 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2017