Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?
Abstract 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 clin...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2017-11-01
|
| Series: | BMC Medical Education |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0 |
| _version_ | 1811198724947312640 |
|---|---|
| author | Malcolm Moore Chris Roberts Jonathan Newbury Jim Crossley |
| author_facet | Malcolm Moore Chris Roberts Jonathan Newbury Jim Crossley |
| author_sort | Malcolm Moore |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-12T01:35:06Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-4290e793221f46ed8c41363ea4202380 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1472-6920 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-12T01:35:06Z |
| publishDate | 2017-11-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Medical Education |
| spelling | doaj.art-4290e793221f46ed8c41363ea42023802022-12-22T03:53:20ZengBMCBMC Medical Education1472-69202017-11-011711910.1186/s12909-017-1067-0Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings?Malcolm Moore0Chris Roberts1Jonathan Newbury2Jim Crossley3Rural Clinical School, Australian National University Medical SchoolNorthern Clinical School, Sydney Medical School, University of SydneyRural Clinical School, University of AdelaideMedical School, University of SheffieldAbstract 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.http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0Clinical handoverWork-based assessmentCommunication skillsMedical education |
| spellingShingle | Malcolm Moore Chris Roberts Jonathan Newbury Jim Crossley Am I getting an accurate picture: a tool to assess clinical handover in remote settings? BMC Medical Education Clinical handover Work-based assessment Communication skills Medical education |
| 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 | Clinical handover Work-based assessment Communication skills Medical education |
| url | http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12909-017-1067-0 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT malcolmmoore amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings AT chrisroberts amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings AT jonathannewbury amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings AT jimcrossley amigettinganaccuratepictureatooltoassessclinicalhandoverinremotesettings |